Re: Orson Scott Card and Evolution...

On Jun 1, 4:34 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
dwight.thi...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 1, 2:49 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
dwight.thi...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 1, 1:42 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
dwight.thi...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 1, 12:44 pm, "Mike Schilling" <mscottschill...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
dwight.thi...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 1, 11:04 am, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschill...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <KAW7i.11414$2v1.8...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mike Schilling <mscottschill...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article
<200705311714.l4VHEn1r152...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael
Stemper <mstem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <465eb8f9$0$46970$d368...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike
Van Pelt writes:
In article
<MPG.20c23053c5b80d0f989...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff
Stehman
<j...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <f385qr$34...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
nos...@xxxxxxxxxx says...

As I pointed out in my posting, there are some "4004 BC"
type creationists who have glommed on to the ID lable.
I use "4004 BC" to include those who admit a somewhat
earlier date, but still think the date of creation was
within six orders of magnitude of 6000 years ago.

Uhh, "within six orders of magnitude of 6000 years ago"
takes us back to six billion years ago. I guess that this
means that I'm in the "4004 BC" camp.

Uh... Current science is that the Big Bang (or Intense
Inflation, etc.) was something like 15 billion years ago,
plus or minus 20% maybe. The Earth is 4.5 billion or so. If
I'd been talking about the age of just the Earth, or just
the Solar System, I'd have said five orders of magnitude.

Are their actually cranks who admit 6 billion but not 15?

Not that I know of. I've seen some say "Well, maybe as
many as 10 million years", but there's a pretty huge
gap between there and anything close to the actual age.

I class the "Maybe as many as 10 million years" folks
in with the 4004BC'ers. The difference is insignificant.

Right, that's only 3 orders of magnitude.-

Sigh. Which is within six orders of magnitude.

Really? You astound me.

The point (hardly worth pursuing at this point) is that while
"4004 BC" might be a reasonable metonym for "Ok, maybe a few
million years, tops", it' would be a poor one for "6 billion
years, but surely not 15", even if anyone said that

Sigh. The point is that he caught _every_ nut with his very
succinct 'within six orders of magnitude.' Must be that famous
reading comprehension thing.

No, the point is that he'd catch precisely as many nuts with four
or five orders of magnitude, but not catch perfectly sane people
who know that the current consensus number is N billion but are a
bit fuzzy on the precise value of N

Sigh. This is what he said in the follw-up:

----begin----

Uh... Current science is that the Big Bang (or Intense
Inflation, etc.) was something like 15 billion years ago,
plus or minus 20% maybe. The Earth is 4.5 billion or so. If
I'd been talking about the age of just the Earth, or just
the Solar System, I'd have said five orders of magnitude.

----end----

Seems pretty clear to me. In fact, very clear.

Who said it wasn't clear?

I would also note
that there are nuts out there who think the universe is considerably
younger (< 10 billion years) but still on the order of bilions. I
think this was an Archimedes Plutonium staple, or possibly Tom
Potter, both of sci.physics crank fame.

And there are nuts who get the figure correct, and, for all I know,
nuts who think it's older. Do you have a point?

The point was that your interpretation was wrong and that your
snarkiness was unjustified.

And here I though it was that you're a moron and a stalker.

Huh? Being snarky and right is one thing, not nice, but I won't
generally comment on it. Being wrong is another, and I may or may not
comment on it as it strikes my fancy.

But snarky and wrong? That pushes my buttons. And you were both.

As for stalking?!?!?!?! What the _hell_ are you talking about?

Btw, given that you were, in point of fact, wrong, I wouldn't be so
quick to throw around the epithet 'moron'.

I'll also note that you are being extremely uncivil with exactly zero
provocation, but that's your lookout.

.