Re: When London is submerged and New York is awash...

From: Clarence_A (no_at_No.com)
Date: 01/18/05 

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:24:18 GMT

"Jonathan Kirwan" <jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote in message
news:ajlpu0l469hev38i46b1f6493frt1lj3vj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:13:51 +0000, Guy Macon
> <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> wrote:
>
> >>I don't really wish to address myself to the web site you
mentioned. It's
> >>conclusions aren't current, suggesting that the human
contributions are
> >>negligible. That fact is that they aren't negligible. But
since it also isn't
> >>itself peer-reviewed, so I won't bother to address the page.
> >
> >You dismiss what you cannot refute.
>
> You know? My point was correct and well-directed and you bring
up an entirely
> different bit of stuff as though that was what was being
discussed. I point
> this out and *you* don't admit *you* were wrong! And then you
blame me?
>
> Strange, you are.
>
> Regarding the above, I will not debate something that cannot
deal with points.
> The web page mentioned is NOT peer-reviewed, nor is it science.
It is someone's
> opinion. I will debate them *if* you bring them here to debate.
I'll debate
> you if you will support points you believe you can. But I've
learned a long
> time ago that there is no point in debating an opinion on a web
page. It's
> futile.
>
> However, like I said, it is fair game to point out conclusions
made in peer
> reviewed science papers and I'll deal with those, without the
author being here.
> I will also accept arguments *you* make based on peer-reviewed
science and try
> to deal with them fairly and the best I can.
>
> As I also said, if you want to make its arguments your own and
are willing to
> defend the points yourself, have at it and I will try to deal
with your points
> honestly and squarely. But *you* have to be sufficiently
informed yourself to
> make the points and to deal with objections I bring up. I will
not debate a web
> page.
>
> It doesn't get fairer than that, Guy.
>
> >All the data listed on
> >http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
> >is properly referenced to peer-reviewed sources.
>
> I checked on the resources, Guy. At least, I did in a couple of
cases and so
> far I've no complaints in that regard. Those I looked at look
respectable, so
> far. In fact, I cited from one of them to you in my last post.
>
> My point isn't about what that web page references, Guy. It's
what the web page
> concludes and what it pieces together. And *that* part isn't
peer-reviewed.
>
> Any idiot can pull out a bunch of numbers, without
understanding, and put them
> together in some fashion and then arrive at conclusions and top
it all off with
> references to "peer reviewed" sources and none of that makes any
of the web
> site's methods or conclusions any better.
>
> If *you* want to make an argument from that page, fine. You
will base your
> argument on those peer-reviewed papers that *you* will read and
understand, so
> that you can deal with the points I'll make when you make your
position clear.
>
> I'll debate you and you are free to accept the conclusions of
that page and
> argue them, as your own. But I won't debate what cannot deal
with my responses.
> You can, the web site cannot.
>
> >Given the huge
> >number of Global warming True Believers, if those numbers were
> >wrong there would be multiple websites pointing out the errors.

Since belief is the only criteria, and the numbers are irrelevant,
why bother?

> There may be. I wouldn't know. This kind of guessing around
and trying to make
> a point from absolutely no information at all except what is in
your imagination
> doesn't reflect well on you, though.
>
> If you have a point on the issues, make it. If all you are
doing is arguing
> from the authority of that web page, I won't participate or
care.
> Jon

There is no point in discussing anything with a "Believer" they
can not concede even that they MIGHT be wrong, or that what they
believe is not perhaps what they claim it to be to others!

Bye!

Relevant Pages

  • ID Revisited
    ... It's not a debate - it's a querulous mob looking for comfort. ... You cannot reason with those to whom reason is ... or with those driven by fear and ignorance. ... desire to see science dethroned. ...
    (rec.sport.football.college)
  • Geoscientists and educators take on antievolutionists
    ... Here's one way to win a debate: Start an argument with folks who aren't ... Design movement as it continues to attack public science education ... Among the first mistakes scientists and educators make is actually arguing ... presentation titled, "Evolution in Kansas: ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Gunners Status
    ... refuse to debate the issue is what frightens me the most. ... interpretation of the politics, not the science. ... It's self-serving politics. ... Let's just wait and see if the issue sort's itself out as more facts and ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Proposal - a new strategy to counter anti-evolutionists
    ... > There is certainly a place for education about the philosophy of science and ... school board meetings and internet groups, ... I don't know what else you expect scientists to do. ... typically under an hour of actual debate time, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionists are afraid to debate with Ann Coulter.
    ... almost immediately after it went on sale, but how could Ann Coulter ... do than debate with Creationists, but it seems to me that this attitude ... Hovind and Gish talk at length about Creation Science because it ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast