Einstein and peer review. (I've never been published in Nature, but...)

[Jorge]

Yup. All traits you have amply demonstrated in this thread. Seeing as they did not work, you’ve switched tracks and are now trying to laugh away you errors and blunders, or you’ve simply forgotten them, so I’m guessing you need a reminder:

You first stated an over-generalisation that “anything that criticizes the Evolution dogma - that paper paper [sic] will be toast before it even gets to 1st base of PR regardless of its scientific merits”. I posted 4 papers that showed your statement was wrong.

In response you blundered by stating those 4 papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview". They were not.

I challenged you to correct your blunder, but you said that these papers clearly show that “Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned”. They did not.

Do you deny you said these?
Do you deny you erred and blundered?
Do you deny that it shows your reading comprehension was poor?
Do you deny that you simply responded blindly rather than having considered my post and did some background research?
Do you deny that you have spent considerable time trying to turn the tables, calling me everything under the sun, in trying to escape responsibility for your words?
Do you deny you tried to attribute my position against your goal shifted position and created a straw man?

Try answering these questions for a change. The rest of NS301 readers just laugh at how you erred and blundered in your rabid attack on a non-YEC and stated that those papers were in support of the evolutionary paradigm when anyone who had done an ounce of checking would have known they were the opposite. But you didn’t just claim it once, but twice! When it was finally explained to you, you had to back track with dishonest debate tactics and venom. Quite simply, you cannot take the fact that you made a mistake and your pride prevents you from admitting it. The longer you maintain this attitude, the closer you are to rejection - see Matthew 7:23. Try practicing what you preach for a change; exercise some honesty in answering those questions.

At least you do know how to follow directions ... you did "keep 'em coming" as I had instructed.

"desperation - ire - boiling over - anger - slander - malice - deceit - blundered - dishonest - venom"


All that said, you may now stop - I grow tired of this game. Your ad hominem agenda so as to divert attention from my substantive claims and arguments is childishly transparent. You've provided for me the best example ever of how you people attack the person when the argument has overwhelmed you.

Speaking of which, have you check out my new thread " ... best answer ever"?
Nah ... you'll probably avoid that also so as to focus on your ad hominem objective.

Jorge

[Omega Red]

At least you do know how to follow directions ... you did "keep 'em coming" as I had instructed.

"desperation - ire - boiling over - anger - slander - malice - deceit - blundered - dishonest - venom"


All that said, you may now stop - I grow tired of this game. Your ad hominem agenda so as to divert attention from my substantive claims and arguments is childishly transparent. You've provided for me the best example ever of how you people attack the person when the argument has overwhelmed you.

Speaking of which, have you check out my new thread " ... best answer ever"?
Nah ... you'll probably avoid that also so as to focus on your ad hominem objective.

Jorge

Yup. All traits you have amply demonstrated in this thread. But you failed to follow any direction. I asked you to answer my questions below. I’ve answered yours, so you can return the favour and answer mine:

You first stated an over-generalisation that “anything that criticizes the Evolution dogma - that paper paper [sic] will be toast before it even gets to 1st base of PR regardless of its scientific merits”. I posted 4 papers that showed your statement was wrong.

In response you blundered by stating those 4 papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview". They were not.

I challenged you to correct your blunder, but you said that these papers clearly show that “Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned”. They did not.

Do you deny you said these?
Do you deny you erred and blundered?
Do you deny that it shows your reading comprehension was poor?
Do you deny that you simply responded blindly rather than having considered my post and did some background research?
Do you deny that you have spent considerable time trying to turn the tables, calling me everything under the sun, in trying to escape responsibility for your words?
Do you deny you tried to attribute my position against your goal shifted position and created a straw man?

You’ve deviated slightly from the laugh-it-off exit strategy and begun to add more detestable debate tactics. Your ego is still in control and wants to fight me into submission. Your actual words are clear as linked to above and your attitude in your responses equally as transparent throughout this thread.

Perhaps you are having trouble reading, it would not be the first time, so let’s try again: Quite simply, you cannot take the fact that you made a mistake and your pride prevents you from admitting it. The longer you maintain this attitude, the closer you are to rejection - see Matthew 7:23. Try practicing what you preach for a change; exercise some honesty in answering those questions.

[Jorge]

NS301 posters: "Please give us answers Jorge"

Jorge: "I already did, I just won't tell you where"

NS301 posters: Where Jorge? No one can find them.

Jorge: Listen you poopy heads I said I already provided them!!

NS301 posters: You say a lot of things that aren't true Jorge. Just link to answers you say you gave, or post them again.

Jorge: You won't accept MY TROOTH!! so I'm not wasting time on all you who HATE JESUS!!

NS301 posters: Yeah Jorge, whatever...


That really sums it up.

As I have stated numerous times, the witless IQ of you people forces you to
plagiarize -- i.e., you can't even be original in your 'insults'. And so you steal
my material, including the emoticons, as seen in Beagle Boy's post above.

Hey, maybe TWeb ought to add a new rule: buffoons (like Beagle Boy) that
steal the material of another poster will be publicly flogged.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

As I have stated numerous times

Jorge

Just correcting your many blunders and distortions Jorge. God doesn't have any problem with telling the truth.

[Jorge]

Yup. All traits you have amply demonstrated in this thread. But you failed to follow any direction. I asked you to answer my questions below. I’ve answered yours, so you can return the favour and answer mine:

You first stated an over-generalisation that “anything that criticizes the Evolution dogma - that paper paper [sic] will be toast before it even gets to 1st base of PR regardless of its scientific merits”. I posted 4 papers that showed your statement was wrong.

In response you blundered by stating those 4 papers "are nothing more than imaginations / thoughts / hypotheses / etc. supporting the same Evolutionary paradigm within a Materialistic worldview". They were not.

I challenged you to correct your blunder, but you said that these papers clearly show that “Evolution is taken as an ABSOLUTE GIVEN, only the mechanism is being questioned”. They did not.

Do you deny you said these?
Do you deny you erred and blundered?
Do you deny that it shows your reading comprehension was poor?
Do you deny that you simply responded blindly rather than having considered my post and did some background research?
Do you deny that you have spent considerable time trying to turn the tables, calling me everything under the sun, in trying to escape responsibility for your words?
Do you deny you tried to attribute my position against your goal shifted position and created a straw man?

You’ve deviated slightly from the laugh-it-off exit strategy and begun to add more detestable debate tactics. Your ego is still in control and wants to fight me into submission. Your actual words are clear as linked to above and your attitude in your responses equally as transparent throughout this thread.

Perhaps you are having trouble reading, it would not be the first time, so let’s try again: Quite simply, you cannot take the fact that you made a mistake and your pride prevents you from admitting it. The longer you maintain this attitude, the closer you are to rejection - see Matthew 7:23. Try practicing what you preach for a change; exercise some honesty in answering those questions.

Listen Mr. Red : I had already responded to your nonsense and that's all that you're going to get.
As a reminder (since your selective memory seems to be at work): I told you (paraphrasing) that just as a cheap lawyer your tactic is to nit-pick every single word or syllable and then use that as your "AHA, I got you!" argument. To illustrate that tactic, here you found the word "anything" and latched on to it knowing that you could go back in history as far back as you needed to a time when things weren't as they are now. And so you went back 30-40 years and discovered your "AHA - I got you!" papers. You certainly cannot do the same for anything written by Biblical Creationists much closer to the present date.

After that I simply had no more use for your words or your tactics.

If you want to declare a 'victory' using Clintonesque tactics such as those (i.e., "depends on what is IS") then be my guest - I DO NOT CARE! Each person can decide on his/her own the value of your grandiose achievement. I rest in the full knowledge that my claim (on peer review) was and remains 100.00% true and accurate. Sorry that you cannot accept that.

Now, this was my last post on this matter. You may feel free to have the last word, or as many last words as you wish. Just don't expect any more on this from me - I've already had my fun.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Just correcting your many blunders and distortions Jorge. God doesn't have any problem with telling the truth.

What "God" are you talking about, Atheist?

How can you make any moral judgments? On whose authority? Yours?

Yeah, that whooshing noise was my point way over your head.

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

What "God" are you talking about

Jorge

The one you claim the divine right to speak for. The same one you spit on every time you post another YEC lie in His name.

[Jorge]

The one you claim the divine right to speak for.
The same one you spit on every time you post another YEC lie in His name.

Whatever you're presently smoking STOP before your few remaining neurons go POOF!

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

I see the board's blundering buffoon has been repeating yet another Creationist PRATT lie on his latest disinformation thread. It's the same old crap about KNM-ER-1470 hominid skull of the species Homo rudolfensis and the KBS tuff strata in which it was found.

The original dating of the KBS volcanic ash was about 2.6 MY. However, the KNM-ER-1470 skull showed much more in common with later hominid fossils in the 2MY to 1.6 MY age range. As scientists do, they investigated the discrepency and discovered the KBS tuff had been misdated. The KBS tuff is actually composed of mixed ash from volcanoes of different ages which led to an incorrect K-Ar date being determined. When care was taken to closely examine the ash and separate out residue from each individual eruption the correct age was determined to be 1.8 MY which is consilient with the age of the other hominid specimens.

KBS Tuff dating and geochronology of tuffaceous sediments in the Koobi Fora and Shungura Formations, East Africa
Drake et al
Nature, 283, 368 - 372 (24 January 1980)

Abstract: Plio–Pleistocene lacustrine and fluvial sediments of the Koobi Fora Formation along the east shore of Lake Turkana in northern Kenya (see Fig. 1) and thicker fluvial sediments of the Shungura Formation in the Lower Omo River Basin 100 km to the north have become widely recognised because of their rich hominid and artefact assemblages, together with associated vertebrate fauna1–3. Over the past decade, tuffaceous horizons within these two sedimentary formations have been mapped4,5 and dated by K–Ar6–11 and fission-track techniques12 to provide chronologic control supporting studies of hominid and faunal evolution and archaeology. We report here new 40K–40Ar dates and revised values for previously published dates which give a mean age of 1.8±0.1 Myr for the KBS Tuff. This estimate suggests contemporaneity between the KBS Tuff and Tuff Units H2 and H4 in the Shungura Formation, lower Omo River Basin, Ethiopia, and with Bed I at Olduvai Gorge.

Notice that it was "evo" scientists who both identified and corrected the error, not blustering YEC blowhards. I'll also note that since this original discovery several other Homo rudolfensis specimens have been identified and all date to the 1.8 tp 1.9 MY time frame providing yet more consilient evidence.

Creationists like Jorge have been repeating this PRATT for decades. You'd think they'd get tired of the same old lies but no...

[rogue06]

I'll bet if you tried you could make this point without as many invectives

[Omniskeptical]

I wonder if the helium in the zircons produces the radioactivity. It's been rumored that the movement of proton and neutrons causes radioactivity. It should also be noted "decay constants" were first built around meteorite specimens.

Edit: I forgot to mention check moon rock as a candidate.

[HMS_Beagle]

I'll bet if you tried you could make this point without as many invectives

I was told that if I toned it down on Jorge the mods would deal with Jorge's drive-by insult only posts.

I agreed and tried that for a few weeks and absolutely nothing was done.

What now?

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes, I have. As I wrote previously, "that you do not wish to acknowledge this is not my problem".

Only a deluded person, aka you, would seriously see you as being 'honest' with much of your stuff. After all, you keep saying you have all this evidence, but will not repeat it, link to it, or clearly state what it is. Why is that?

Terror: "Give me answers ... give me answers ... I demand answers!!!"

Jorge: "Sure, Terror, here you go ..."

Terror: [not bothering to read/study answers] "Give me answers ... I demand answers!!!"

Jorge: Huh?

Terror: "You never give any answers ... I demand answers!!!"

Jorge:


That about sums it up.

Your separation from reality and the delusions you pass off as truth would make quite an interesting case, but here is how it really works:

Me: "Where is your evidence."

You: "It has been repeated elsewhere, but I will not bother to tell you where it is at!"

Me: "Why not?"

You: "Because you're too stupid/dumb/ignorant to understand any of it."

Me: "Than why don't you tell what it is in case others are not so 'stupid/dumb/ignorant' to understand what it is?"

You: "Ummm... come to this other thread that I started, so I could run away from this one!"

Me: "So you can avoid giving your answers again?"

You: "I gave you answers, you're just too stupid/dumb/ignorant to understand!"

Me:

This is more accurate for your typical debate style. Perhaps if you were not so self deluded, you would know that, but I guess when you're out of answers... any shelter in a storm will do. Even if it is out right self delusions...

[rogue06]

I was told that if I toned it down on Jorge the mods would deal with Jorge's drive-by insult only posts.

I agreed and tried that for a few weeks and absolutely nothing was done.

What now?

Actually things did slightly improve for a short time. And if you notice, he is trying to offer some evidence to support his claims (even if it consists of PRATTs). The claims surrounding the KNM-ER-1470 skull itself is an example.

[HMS_Beagle]

Actually things did slightly improve for a short time. And if you notice, he is trying to offer some evidence to support his claims (even if it consists of PRATTs). The claims surrounding the KNM-ER-1470 skull itself is an example.

Should board members start again with reporting the one-line insult posts of which we got another 3-4 today? Will anything positive happen if we do?