|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2019 17:47:44 GMT -5
It is not often that a member/head of a creationist www site makes such a mark. A PhD in biochemistry (Berkeley 1953) and had published 10+ peer reviewed well received academic papers. That all came to an end in the early 70s when he joined forces with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and became their scientific spokesperson. While he held no degrees or training in evolutionary biology he did not fear taking any side that supported the ICR. His debating style was dramatic and has been copied by many creationists and young earth believers. The style was so distinct that it was called the Gish gallop. The tactic is to present as many claims as possible without worrying if they are supported by fact or not, knowing that cleaning up the mess will take an unreasonable amount of time and effort and still probably not be able to clear up all of the skeptical claims. Throwing dung against the wall to see if it sticks is much easier than stopping to clean it up. In a timed debate, a quipped "light travels instantaneously from the stars to the earth", a quick remark unsupported by fact, but it cannot simply be countered by "No it doesn't" but time and reasoning must be employed to show it is incorrect. This brought to mind the latest Gish Galloper. Of course, it is an option to just ignore the incorrect posts and the video links presenting the same tired statements regarding the age of the universe/earth or the changing of the speed of light as the earth ages (well, at least until the speed of light could be accurately measured) without bothering to clean it up but as Carl Sagan noted, in the demon-haunted world science is a candle in the dark. The issue goes beyond theism and atheism to address supported and unsupported facts.
|
|
|
Post by rjkee on Aug 3, 2019 4:00:21 GMT -5
Sounds like a case of the BS asymmetry principle, or Brandolini's Law, which states that 'the amount of energy needed to refute BS is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it'.
Robert Belfast
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 3, 2019 7:22:47 GMT -5
It is not often that a member/head of a creationist www site makes such a mark. A PhD in biochemistry (Berkeley 1953) and had published 10+ peer reviewed well received academic papers. That all came to an end in the early 70s when he joined forces with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) Sad. The issue goes beyond theism and atheism to address supported and unsupported facts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2019 13:47:11 GMT -5
Evolution Challenge of the Fossil record. Duane Gish, PhD www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8H35GDLNuwSince no one has copied this post or commented beyond my post of it, I add this Edit - I watched the Youtube video linked above end to end. I am so far unable to learn the production date, but have spent no time trying -- This video presents the same scientific evidence in different wording from that of Dr. Jason Lisle. Now If Duane Gish is in memorial on this thread, that would mean that he not only predates Dr. Lisle in his scientific research, but that he has died. And I see no conviction for "plagiarism" stuffed onto Dr. Lisle. What is very clear is that Dr,\. Lisle was not the originator/owner of copyright upon the "idea" of either ypung earth creation science or of MY posting of the same idea in my own words on this board. Yet rational has STILL not admitted that he was wrong to judge and convict gratu of "plsagiarism" of Dr. Lisle's "idea." Thank you rational for starting a thread yourself that refutes your false judgment and conviction of "plagiarism" by gratu. I no longer even expect you to admit you were and remain WRONG because you provide plenty of evidence that you will never admit you were or are WRONG. Edit2 - Science ... a reality check creation.com/science-a-reality-checkExcerpt Editor’s note: As Creation magazine has been continuously published since 1978, we are publishing some of the articles from the archives for historical interest, such as this. For teaching and sharing purposes, readers are advised to supplement these historic articles with more up-to-date ones available by searching creation.com. Science ... a reality check ‘Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as ‘truth’ is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment in time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.’ Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2019 21:43:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 3, 2019 21:55:23 GMT -5
Science is the intellectual pursuit of the understanding of our world and universe, based on study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
It is thus objective and constantly open to correction and development as more becomes known.
Genesis is not a scientific account of God's role in creation (read for instance Jewish scholars on the topic).
The age of the universe, using best current science, is 13.77 billion years. If you are a believer in the creator God, this fact should be inspirational. Similarly for believers, it would seem totally fraudulent for a creator God to play tricks with the physical (scientific) facts to hide or distort the true age of the natural creation. Why would he?
Science does not study or provide much in the way of spiritual knowledge.
We humans were created with amazing minds and intelligence to be able to learn and gain knowledge about the world in which we live. There's a purpose in that.
The universe is immense, in terms of time and distance (space). For believers, how big is our God?
Just some current thoughts of mine, admin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2019 21:58:26 GMT -5
lordy lordy....
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 3, 2019 23:37:21 GMT -5
Science is the intellectual pursuit of the understanding of our world and universe, based on study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. It is thus objective and constantly open to correction and development as more becomes known. Genesis is not a scientific account of God's role in creation (read for instance Jewish scholars on the topic). The age of the universe, using best current science, is 13.77 billion years. If you are a believer in the creator God, this fact should be inspirational. Similarly for believers, it would seem totally fraudulent for a creator God to play tricks with the physical (scientific) facts to hide or distort the true age of the natural creation. Why would he? Science does not study or provide much in the way of spiritual knowledge. We humans were created with amazing minds and intelligence to be able to learn and gain knowledge about the world in which we live. There's a purpose in that. The universe is immense, in terms of time and distance (space). For believers, how big is our God? Just some current thoughts of mine, admin Some very good thoughts, admin.
Thank you,
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 4, 2019 8:39:46 GMT -5
Science ... a reality check creation.com/science-a-reality-checkExcerpt Editor’s note: As Creation magazine has been continuously published since 1978, we are publishing some of the articles from the archives for historical interest, such as this. For teaching and sharing purposes, readers are advised to supplement these historic articles with more up-to-date ones available by searching creation.com. Science ... a reality check ‘Science … is not so much concerned with truth as it is with consensus. What counts as ‘truth’ is what scientists can agree to count as truth at any particular moment isince there was some evidence this was a possible n time … [Scientists] are not really receptive or not really open-minded to any sorts of criticisms or any sorts of claims that actually are attacking some of the established parts of the research (traditional) paradigm — in this case neo-Darwinism — so it is very difficult for people who are pushing claims that contradict the paradigm to get a hearing. They’ll find it difficult to [get] research grants; they’ll find it hard to get their research published; they’ll, in fact, find it very hard.’ Professor Evelleen Richards, Science Historian, University of NSW, Australia, Lateline, 9 October 1998, Australian Broadcasting Corporation. The above statement is difficult to understand. In 1989 Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann claimed to have used cold fusion to generate power. Scientists all over the world rushed to duplicate their experiments. Millions of dollar were spend for research. As it turned out at the time, it seemed that the experiment did not function as claimed. But because there was scientific validity in the claims, although not proved by the experiments at the time, research continued to be funded as evidenced by the following report from Scientific American: "The Sixth International Cold Fusion Conference, ICCF-6, was held in October 1996 near Sapporo in northern Japan. It was sponsored by a branch of MITI, which has given some $30 million over four years for cold fusion research; this support was matched by funds and personnel from some 20 major Japanese companies and in cooperation with a dozen Japanese universities. MITI started the New Hydrogen Energy (NHE) laboratory near Sapporo, which visitors have estimated contains some $10-million worth of equipment. "The conference was remarkable for three reports of high-quality Japanese experiments, which contrasted sharply with other reports. The NHE lab of MITI described a large series of experiments devised to check the original claims of Fleischmann and Pons. No excess heat was found. www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-current-scien/ Understanding how science works.I am certain the that creation.com does find it difficult to get scientific funding. It might be because the Discovery Museum contains scenes like: Getting funding to new ideas that have some supporting evidence is difficult. Getting funding for ideas that have been proved incorrect many time is even more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 4, 2019 12:31:06 GMT -5
So many memories, so much skepticism. But here is a church that some readers might be able to get behind. All the members require is that you skeptically review the information before you sign up. Hurry, you only have until Thursday Check it out before it is too late!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 14:00:28 GMT -5
So many memories, so much skepticism. But here is a church that some readers might be able to get behind. All the members require is that you skeptically review the information before you sign up. Hurry, you only have until Thursday Check it out before it is too late!Used car salesmen sometimes run the show at lots of churches - so what rational, they only catch the gullible, and quite evidently as some cases indicate, the gullible are plentiful these days. Your religion is full of em.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 4, 2019 18:41:15 GMT -5
So many memories, so much skepticism. But here is a church that some readers might be able to get behind. All the members require is that you skeptically review the information before you sign up. Hurry, you only have until Thursday Check it out before it is too late!Used car salesmen sometimes run the show at lots of churches - so what rational, they only catch the gullible, and quite evidently as some cases indicate, the gullible are plentiful these days. Your religion is full of em. Do you think maybe that YOU, gratu, -may have missed the point?
After all, -one of the main beliefs of the church is that You, (in this case the YOU is yourself, gratu) ``that the universe was created by You as a test for yourself.
That being so, -how dare you make fun of your own creation! "> The Church of Last Thursday
For You created the world on Thursday so as to expire on Thursday, in order to test yourself. We, the Last Thursdayists, followers of Last Thursdayism, members of The Church of Last Thursday, believe:
``that the universe was created on Thursday, and will expire on Thursday. ``that the universe was created by You as a test for yourself. ``that you will be rewarded or punished when this universe expires based on your actions here. ``that left-handedness is a sinful temptation. that everyone but you was placed here and pre-programmed to act as parts of your test environment. that everyone but you knows this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 19:34:26 GMT -5
Used car salesmen sometimes run the show at lots of churches - so what rational, they only catch the gullible, and quite evidently as some cases indicate, the gullible are plentiful these days. Your religion is full of em. Do you think maybe that YOU, gratu, -may have missed the point?
After all, -one of the main beliefs of the church is that You, (in this case the YOU is yourself, gratu) ``that the universe was created by You as a test for yourself.
That being so, -how dare you make fun of your own creation! "> The Church of Last Thursday
For You created the world on Thursday so as to expire on Thursday, in order to test yourself. We, the Last Thursdayists, followers of Last Thursdayism, members of The Church of Last Thursday, believe:
``that the universe was created on Thursday, and will expire on Thursday. ``that the universe was created by You as a test for yourself. ``that you will be rewarded or punished when this universe expires based on your actions here. ``that left-handedness is a sinful temptation. that everyone but you was placed here and pre-programmed to act as parts of your test environment. that everyone but you knows this.Nope - I got ration's point quite well I think, but in one reading of yours I can make out little more than imaginary, nightmarish babble that fits no reality and is of such foolish degree I will not try a second reading.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 4, 2019 19:58:59 GMT -5
Do you think maybe that YOU, gratu, -may have missed the point?
After all, -one of the main beliefs of the church is that You, (in this case the YOU is yourself, gratu) ``that the universe was created by You as a test for yourself.
That being so, -how dare you make fun of your own creation! "> The Church of Last Thursday
For You created the world on Thursday so as to expire on Thursday, in order to test yourself. We, the Last Thursdayists, followers of Last Thursdayism, members of The Church of Last Thursday, believe:
``that the universe was created on Thursday, and will expire on Thursday. ``that the universe was created by You as a test for yourself. ``that you will be rewarded or punished when this universe expires based on your actions here. ``that left-handedness is a sinful temptation. that everyone but you was placed here and pre-programmed to act as parts of your test environment. that everyone but you knows this. Nope - I got ration's point quite well I think, but in one reading of yours I can make out little more than imaginary, nightmarish babble that fits no reality and is of such foolish degree I will not try a second reading. Yes, sorry. But you did miss the point!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2019 20:48:41 GMT -5
Nope - I got ration's point quite well I think, but in one reading of yours I can make out little more than imaginary, nightmarish babble that fits no reality and is of such foolish degree I will not try a second reading. Yes, sorry. But you did miss the point!What point did I miss - yours or rational's - and if YOU are telling me I missed rational's point, how do you know that, by collaboration between you and rational. (that is not a question) I got A point, and rational has as yet not corrected it - just you - just more evidence that you are rational's angel I think.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2019 0:40:02 GMT -5
Evolution Challenge of the Fossil record. Duane Gish, PhD www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8H35GDLNuwSince no one has copied this post or commented beyond my post of it, I add this Edit - I watched the Youtube video linked above end to end. I am so far unable to learn the production date, but have spent no time trying -- This video presents the same scientific evidence in different wording from that of Dr. Jason Lisle. Poiunt out the original ideas of Gish that Lisle presented as his own. A young earth would not count. There is no record of Gish doing any original research. Did Gish mention the 'one way speed of light'? Using different words perhaps? No, I don't see the point of stating I am wrong as long as you cannot explain in a verifiable way how you developed, for example, the idea of a different speed of light depending on its direction. And, again, someone is not convicted of plagiarism. I have a feeling the purpose of starting this thread went sailing right over your head. Not until you provide some evidence that would disprove that the ideas you presented as your own came from the Lisle video you said you watched. If I recall correctly, when I discussed the reason Lisle was having difficulty proving his case you indicated the physics was beyond your understanding and dismissed it as gibberish. That raises the question of how you would have developed your explanation? From the bible readings? I think not.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2019 1:02:35 GMT -5
Nope - I got ration's point quite well I think, but in one reading of yours I can make out little more than imaginary, nightmarish babble that fits no reality and is of such foolish degree I will not try a second reading. No, I think you missed the point(s).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 2:30:58 GMT -5
Evolution Challenge of the Fossil record. Duane Gish, PhD www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8H35GDLNuwSince no one has copied this post or commented beyond my post of it, I add this Edit - I watched the Youtube video linked above end to end. I am so far unable to learn the production date, but have spent no time trying -- This video presents the same scientific evidence in different wording from that of Dr. Jason Lisle. Poiunt out the original ideas of Gish that Lisle presented as his own. A young earth would not count. There is no record of Gish doing any original research. Did Gish mention the 'one way speed of light'? Using different words perhaps? No, I don't see the point of stating I am wrong as long as you cannot explain in a verifiable way how you developed, for example, the idea of a different speed of light depending on its direction. And, again, someone is not convicted of plagiarism. I have a feeling the purpose of starting this thread went sailing right over your head. Not until you provide some evidence that would disprove that the ideas you presented as your own came from the Lisle video you said you watched. If I recall correctly, when I discussed the reason Lisle was having difficulty proving his case you indicated the physics was beyond your understanding and dismissed it as gibberish. That raises the question of how you would have developed your explanation? From the bible readings? I think not. “Poiunt out the original ideas of Gish that Lisle presented as his own. A young earth would not count. “ No thanks, wear your own gossip as you seem pleased to do. If you want to see the 'original' ideas of Duane Gish that Dr. Lisle presented as his own (and the ideas presented by Lisle and Gish were not Gish's original ideas either) , do your own dirty work that is rather obviously aiming to shift your false judgment and conviction for plagiarism onto Dr. Lisle this time. In order to apply your judgment and conviction for plagiarism (by your def) to someone who is guilty (by your def) you will need to trace back to the first person who ever repeated the ideas of Albert Einstein without crediting Albert Einstein – good luck with THAT amusing project because if successful, you will wear the 'great honor' on this board of having passed YOUR judgment and conviction on a dead person (incapable of self-defense) instead of an alias on this board. "A young earth would not count." Rather obviously at this point in this matter, neither will the facts count in your new hoop game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 3:02:55 GMT -5
Nope - I got ration's point quite well I think, but in one reading of yours I can make out little more than imaginary, nightmarish babble that fits no reality and is of such foolish degree I will not try a second reading. No, I think you missed the point(s). Ya, well, I guess you didn't make your "point(s)" clear enough before, nor have you made that clear yet. But at least this time your angel was not sent to do your dirty work for you.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2019 8:16:52 GMT -5
“Poiunt out the original ideas of Gish that Lisle presented as his own. A young earth would not count. “ No thanks, wear your own gossip as you seem pleased to do. If you want to see the 'original' ideas of Duane Gish that Dr. Lisle presented as his own (and the ideas presented by Lisle and Gish were not Gish's original ideas either) , do your own dirty work that is rather obviously aiming to shift your false judgment and conviction for plagiarism onto Dr. Lisle this time. If you refuse to support your own claims don't complain if no one else does. Had anyone presented the ideas of Einstein as their own work, as you did with the ideas Lisle proposed in his video and in his published paper, I am certain that was pointed out to them. Repeating is not the issue. Presenting them as your own is. At this point it is painfully obvious that, to you, the facts do not matter. Just as an aside - there are many cases of plagiarism that are not pointed out. Yours was only because you were pointing out that some worked has 'borrowed' a sermon topic from some other worker. I personally let it slide when you first presented Lisle's ideas. Later I thought that the pot calling the kettle black should be pointed out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 13:00:28 GMT -5
“Poiunt out the original ideas of Gish that Lisle presented as his own. A young earth would not count. “ No thanks, wear your own gossip as you seem pleased to do. If you want to see the 'original' ideas of Duane Gish that Dr. Lisle presented as his own (and the ideas presented by Lisle and Gish were not Gish's original ideas either) , do your own dirty work that is rather obviously aiming to shift your false judgment and conviction for plagiarism onto Dr. Lisle this time. If you refuse to support your own claims don't complain if no one else does. Had anyone presented the ideas of Einstein as their own work, as you did with the ideas Lisle proposed in his video and in his published paper, I am certain that was pointed out to them. Repeating is not the issue. Presenting them as your own is. At this point it is painfully obvious that, to you, the facts do not matter. Just as an aside - there are many cases of plagiarism that are not pointed out. Yours was only because you were pointing out that some worked has 'borrowed' a sermon topic from some other worker. I personally let it slide when you first presented Lisle's ideas. Later I thought that the pot calling the kettle black should be pointed out. “If you refuse to support your own claims don't complain if no one else does “ I have supported my own claims over and over and over again – and watched you twist that support in order to deny it over and over and over again, as if YOU have the necessary power to know what ideas I have held, where I got those ideas and when I got them – so you act as God while plagiarizing (by your def)' the idea there is no God as your own idea..And that is typical of the self-refuting religion you hold as your own. But we went through much of this months ago, have repeated the same again recently upon your judgment and conviction of an alias for plagiarism (by your def). You are again wasting your time and abundant effort to TRY to avoid admitting you are WRONG. And I have wasted more time already than I care to waste AGAIN on your gossip. So wear your gossip. “Just as an aside - there are many cases of plagiarism “ And YOU, making yourself into a God, would of course KNOW all such unrevealed cases of plagiarism, while you present your 'there is no God' idea as your own idea – the rational pot calls the kettle black just like a well trained 2x2 gossip. So wear your gossip yourself.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 5, 2019 15:09:19 GMT -5
No, I think you missed the point(s). Ya, well, I guess you didn't make your "point(s)" clear enough before, nor have you made that clear yet. But at least this time your angel was not sent to do your dirty work for you. Of course, heave the blame for one's own inability to understand something back onto the presenter as "not being clear enough!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 16:56:24 GMT -5
Ya, well, I guess you didn't make your "point(s)" clear enough before, nor have you made that clear yet. But at least this time your angel was not sent to do your dirty work for you. Of course, heave the blame for one's own inability to understand something back onto the presenter as "not being clear enough!"h huh - rational's chief angel in place of rational again. What is wrong with rational - keyboard-Laryngitis this time. (that is not a question).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 17:34:45 GMT -5
rational - Here again are the same views as mine, those of Dr. Lisle and Duane Gish that credit historical persons by name whose original ideas you have set yourself up as plagiarizing (by your def) with every expression of their original ideas without crediting those ideas to those people. But I doubt that posting the link will result in you watching the video - as you please - Your religion is a total plagiarism by your own definition of "plagiarism." I.e., The History of YOUR religion - full of plagerizers (by your def) of each other. Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ocjJ8FPR18
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2019 17:50:47 GMT -5
“If you refuse to support your own claims don't complain if no one else does “ I have supported my own claims over and over and over again – and watched you twist that support in order to deny it over and over and over again, as if YOU have the necessary power to know what ideas I have held, where I got those ideas and when I got them – so you act as God while plagiarizing (by your def)' the idea there is no God as your own idea..And that is typical of the self-refuting religion you hold as your own. I have asked the question regarding your development of a theory, albeit incorrect, as complex as Lisle's and the latest response was you got it from your childhood public school and from reading the bible. Lisle's work did not exist when you were in public school during your childhood so that would leave the bible as the source. Or a complex theory you developed yourself. Can you see why I am skeptical? You admitted the physics of Lisle's work was beyond your skills and it would take a number of physics courses to get you up to speed. Understandable - low level physics is not everyone's cup of tea. And the time I did make the effort to explain you said you did not read it and called it gibberish. So, going by your own words it does not seem to be a theory you developed yourself. I fail to see even the seeds of Lisle's work in the bible. First, it was not by my definition but by the common definition. Yes, it was my judgement that the ideas you presented were lisle's ideas, presented in both his paper and in the video you claimed to have watched. You even included the same statement as Lisle that light years were a measurement of distance and not time. And I would not accuse an alias of doing anything anymore than I would accuse a ventriloquist's dummy of doing anything. Again, show a source other than Lisle for the information you posted as your own and you will have the proof and I will be shown to have misjudged you. Or you can just keep going round and round claiming evidence that has yet to appear. Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others. You posted all in public so I am not sure the term gossip fits. And I have no idea what "... wear your gossip." means.` I don't believe I said I knew of all unrevealed cases of plagiarism nor do I need/want to know. It would be more ethical, when you are quoting people, to be as accurate as possible and not throw in facts not present. Some well known examples: Melania Trump's Republican National Convention (2016) speech plagiarized Michelle Obama. Alex Haley took parts of Harold Courlander's The African George Harrison used Chiffons' melody from "He's So Fine." Not believing in a deity or deities is not an idea. Every one born does not believe in a deity or deities. That belief is drilled home later.Call it what you will. I used a common definition and called it plagiarism. To date there has been no verifiable source of the material you presented. Like Shylock, I await your response with bated breath. Go to then, you come to me, and you say, "Shylock, we would have moneys," you say so. . . . Shall I bend low and in a bondman's key, With bated breath and whisp'ring humbleness, Say this: "Fair sir, you spet on me Wednesday last, You spurn'd me such a day, another time You call'd me dog; and for these courtesies I'll lend you thus much moneys"?
Shakespeare - The Merchant Of Venice
Still cannot determine what you mean
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2019 18:09:02 GMT -5
rational - Here again are the same views as mine, those of Dr. Lisle and Duane Gish that credit historical persons by name whose original ideas you have set yourself up as plagiarizing (by your def) with every expression of their original ideas without crediting those ideas to those people. But I doubt that posting the link will result in you watching the video - as you please - Your religion is a total plagiarism by your own definition of "plagiarism." I.e., The History of YOUR religion - full of plagerizers (by your def) of each other. Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ocjJ8FPR18Show in the transcript where any of the ideas regardig the speed of light, the problems with measurment of the 1-way speed of light, the difficulties imagined with getting synchronized atomic clocks, or even the mention of light years. Transcript of Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences00:04 tonight I want to talk to you about 00:06 <SNIP> 80:54 a young earth and a supernatural 80:56 creation 81:05 you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 19:08:20 GMT -5
rational -
Na – You point out my words contained in ANY video transcript you like - i.e., do your own dirty work yourself. To me by now you have shown yourself to be nothing better that a gossip spreading false gossip against your target - be that myself, Dr. Lisle or Duane Gish - or yet now another young earth creationist.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2019 19:38:24 GMT -5
rational - Na – You point out my words contained in ANY video transcript you like - i.e., do your own dirty work yourself. To me by now you have shown yourself to be nothing better that a gossip spreading false gossip against your target - be that myself, Dr. Lisle or Duane Gish - or yet now another young earth creationist. It was a plagiarism of ideas and not copying text. It is not dirty work. With the text transcript a search for the keywords is easy. Nothing in the video that could be said to be copied by Lisle. And you know how easy it would be to prove the claim made to be false. If only the only some evidence to support your claim would pop up. Call it gossip if you wish. It changes nothing.
|
|