mardi 11 juillet 2017

Third time over?

1 (FB blog) Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much! 2 Coffin Club as Mute as a Grave on my Question 3 Third time over? 4 (correspondence blog) Debating Manners and Priorities with a Psychology Minded Person

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Some, recently including also admins, seem to have taken the position that EVERYTHING touching Creationism and Biblical chronology and recalibrations of Carbon 14 dating in a Biblical chronology friendly calibration is STRICTLY off topic to this group.

So, as a Creationist I can get this vicious circle:


- Carbon levels were rising, and Abraham (c. 2000 BC) was contemporary probably with very earliest Pharaos (Narmer, Hor Aha, Den, or someone), because carbon 14 levels back then would account for over 1000 years extra.
- But if you are right, you should be able to give some support from Egyptology?

[turning here]

- What Pharaos (or other historically well known or potentially such) have been actually carbon dated (you see, I need the info for a Creationist project)?
- Creationism is wrong!
- Creationism is off topic to this group!

[back elsewhere]

- It seems some Egyptologist are unwilling to discuss the subject.

The first to take the latter attitude here was Youri Volokhine, whose comments and my reply to them were erased from my first debate.

Volokhine (basically) : "Creationism is off topic to this group!"
Me : "so? what I actually asked is not off topic to this group!"

This is the undocumented part of this first dialogue here, and his attitude has in his absence been clearly potent with whatever admin turned the second time I asked short here :

1 Carbon Dated Egyptology? Coffin Club didn't want to tell How Much!

2 Coffin Club as Mute as a Grave on my Question

[3 Third time over?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Jim Liddell?@Luca Miatello? Timothy Reid?@Yvonne Buskens? Julie Morgan?

Holly Eardley
If you would like to discuss creationism and egyptology I'm sure there are plenty of groups to do so. Why discuss it here when you've already been told it's off topic?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I have already told YOU that what I am asking here is NOT the discussion of creationism, BUT what coffins (on topic) are carbon dated.

I suppose you are not an Asperger case but are more like very empathetic to everyone here except to my text, and are voicing the general collective Asperger not getting it of what I actually ASKED.

There are NOT plenty of groups where Egyptologist specifically attend and furnish creationists with facts on what mummies and coffins and masks and papyri and wooden statues are carbon dated.

THAT specific knowledge which I was asking about in the previous two posts, specifying in the second I was NOT asking for a discussion on creationism, even if that seemed in the first to have excited Jim Liddell more than answering my actual question, THAT specific knowledge is HERE.

That is why I came specifically HERE.

Now, let me ask YOU a question.

I asked one question on topic here. I also gave (out of politeness, not as asking anything myself) an information on why I wanted to know what I asked.

Then no one responded to what I asked (Luca Miatello gave a link which he claimed contained lots of answers, but it contained two only). Several responded to WHY I asked it, which I had informed on.

Do YOU think that questions related to expertise HERE can only be asked HERE if everything behind the question is ALSO related to the general atmosphere here?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yvonne Buskens - you could answer the question about carbon dating or not so of the masks you presented. Holly Eardley claims I should have asked that specific question in a group dedicated to discussing Creationism and Egyptology - how many SUCH groups do YOU frequent?

Melissa McIntosh
Calm down, dude, we just prefer actual science. You can't just calibrate c14 dates to whatever supports your argument, it's a set thing. But since neither side is ever going to change their mind all it's ever going to result in is an argument That's probably why it's not really allowed, nothing constructive will come of it and people will just get upset.

Holly Eardley
Hans-Georg, I certainly don't want to make you feel unwelcome, and I do feel empathy towards you. However, this is a controversial topic and you are likely to be met with hostility when you discuss it in conventional egyptology groups. That was why I suggested that you use a group specifically for discussing egyptology and creationism, so people will be more prepared to discuss this with you, and you will face less hostility. Have you considered setting up such a group? You've certainly got some interesting topics, and I think you'd have very useful discussions there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
(could not post)
@Melissa McIntosh :

"Calm down, dude, we just prefer actual science"

Nice, so do I. Btw, you are once again discussing my reason for asking rather than giving any speficic answer to my question.

"You can't just calibrate c14 dates to whatever supports your argument, it's a set thing."

I think I understand the mathematics of C14 dating a little better than you, and I am well aware I can't calibrate to just ANYTHING. But calibrating to reducing Egyptian pre-Persian history to half, I think that is feasible. The original carbon 14 content is NOT per se a set thing, it is presumed to be 100 pmc or around that. This cannot be directly tested.

But this can be tested on dated items where Creationists would disagree with your historic dating and which we would have an idea of when it was.

"But since neither side is ever going to change their mind all it's ever going to result in is an argument"

I was, once again, NOT asking for a debate on my positions. I was asking for specific information which perhaps you could provide - provided you are Egyptologist and not sth else - and which you have (if so) chosen not to provide, and instead provide a discussion I was not actually asking for.

I am NOT foisting creationism on YOU. If Yvonne Buskens - who is an Egyptologist in Liverpool - is totally uninterested in my agenda, but polite enough to answer my actual question, that is all I was asking for, first time, second time, and, by implication about the quandry for creationist research I gave, this time too.

"That's probably why it's not really allowed, nothing constructive will come of it and people will just get upset."

I am getting upset by:

  • people not answering my question
  • people answering info I gave along with my question
  • people stopping me from getting an answer to the actual question I did ask
  • people reasoning about my behaviour instead of answering the actual question I did ask.

    AND this thing on top of that done by someone engaged in "21 Triangles" = behavioural management!

[here is what happened when I tried to post it:]

The reason I could not post is I am excluded from the group.

Probably on advise from Holly and Melissa.

I was going to answer Holly's claim she had empathy for ME by saying I never denied that. I said she had empathy with everyone except MY TEXT. Now, my text and me, that are not the same substance. She certainly had empathy with me as a person, she showed no empathy whatsoever with what I was actually asking. Namely that I should be able to ask a question related to the group, even if the reason I asked it was foreign to other members of the group.

I ought to have added that as to preferring actual science, the kind of thing Holly was trying at and Melissa was professional at simply is no such thing. Psychology and psychiatry are not scientific knowledge about other persons.

To make things crystal clear.

If anyone in the group thought I needed psychiatric attention and it is foisted on me, I am in my rights to resist that kind of bandits.

And this is once again a proof of what I was saying, that certain people do NOT want Creationism seriouslmy diuscussed with people who actually do know some details about it.

Not posted:
Holly Eardley, I saw you work at NHS.

That is not Egyptological. It is also not a kind of network in which members are readily encouraged to join groups dedicated to discussing Creationism and Egyptology. It is a network highly biassed against Creationism.

I also saw you are a HP fan (at least enough to take a test on what house of Hogwarts you would be in, supposing the house and characteristics were given by a test rather than chosen by you) and proud of not being racist. The culture where those traits are prominent is even more biassed against Creationism than medical profession in general.

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire