|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone) | |||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5751 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
First off, thanks for finding a spot in your debate for my post, and guess what- I'm in the mood right now to actually debate with you for a bit, so I read your reply and made some further corrections! (Clap, clap)
quote: Thanks, I have revised my essay a bit more just now. I fixed the problem of mixing Ausralopithecines with Lucy concerning inner ear structure and the time the knee joint was found (Now that I think of it, I can remember reading about that in Bowden's book, but I just didn't pay as much attention to it as the main bulk about the femur). What do you mean the information about the femur doesn't address the problem?!? Read it over, it clearly addresses the problem that the knee joint cannot be claimed to be related to Lucy, concerning the distance and the bones themselves and how they became relate to Lucy, i.e. through the wrong bone.
quote: I didn't use that website, I actually got a hard copy of the book, but hey, thanks for another great resource! Of course you shouldn't be surprised, why would I waste my time reading evolutionist books to get some information if I can read Creationist books and get the information PLUS rebuttal to evolutionist "proofs"?
quote: Maybe Murkywater brought it here this time, but I remember when I first stepped out into the open threads and started debating you, you changed the argument to one about the definition of the terms and not the hard proof... I consider this a logical fallacy of avoiding the issue, maybe you do not, but point is, I do not wish to waste my precious time debating what certain words mean. Let's face it, we all have a rough idea of what the words mean, so we should be well and able to debate the proof, this is what I want in a debate.
quote: I don't know... Are you sure you have any "proof" and not just useless babble about definitions and things??? Even if you do, I just don't know how often I would be able to pull myself out here... I know it's summer and all, but there are a ton of home improvement projects waiting for me, and I like to do other things in my leisure time which I find more exciting than debating right now... Besides, we have another topic already started with Anglagard concerning the "proofs" against the Flood, and I don't know if I'd be able to handle two at a time. I honestly don't know. "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5751 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
Hmmm... Well if we take it step by step, this debate may be possible. I will see, but right now I have some time so I will start debating, and don't be surprised if it may take me weeks before I reply sometimes because I may be very busy. Here goes...
quote: I don't see how come this is supposed to disprove a young earth... I mean, accepted dates for a young earth by most Creationists can be anything from 6 to 10 thousand years, 6 being the best estimate. But if your point is that this age doesn't exactly fit with an estimate for when the Flood was, I still have a rebuttal: Tree ring dating can be misleading under certain conditions, such as when there are two or more wet seasons in a year, the tree will develop extra growth rings and thus appear older than it actually is. Peace. "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5751 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
quote: Yes, here is a good example: "Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced" http://www.answersingenesis.org/...ea/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
quote: You didn't get it, but I assume that you use this "proof" because it supposedly outdates the Flood. "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Someone who cares Member (Idle past 5751 days) Posts: 192 Joined: |
quote: Yes, you'll have to understand that I am a busy person and if posts continue to be this large, I may not be able to debate more with you than a few points before school starts up again... Notice my rebutals take only a couple sentences and possibly a quote, wheras your rebutal requires a whole essay to make it seem as if you really have a strong rebutal, when in reality, your argument is still weak and some MAIN points are purposely avoided. This I will attempt to show here, briefly:
quote: I think that this example of false rings in one species is decently enough to cast doubt on the dates of other tree species. Why? Well you're missing an important point, we as Creationists believe that the "kind" which is referenced in Genesis is much broader than the contemporary "species", which would mean that it is possible that an example from one "family" (possibly even broader) of trees would be enough to cast doubt on the dating of all those trees. Also, I imagine that as a dendrochronologist, if one were dealing with a very old tree, they would try to count up enough rings to get the oldest tree, because it would bring them fame, and this can bring error in counting false rings. Remember, humans are fallible, especially in science when funds and acceptance depend on the "common" mindset of evolution.
quote: Hmmm... I wonder if the Flood would be considered a different environment, and the directly post-Flood conditions-possible ice ages, etc. You must realize that the environment was not always the same, right after the Flood the conditions could be unstable for years...
quote: Refer to above for first part, but he did not say they were the same exact species or subgenus, he said they were the same genus, and as I stated above, the Biblical kind can be as broad as family or beyond...
quote: This may be, but if there is error in ANY number, in ANY species, I think it is well enough to cast doubt on the dates using this method. Of course, it only casts doubt on some of the dates, not totally debunk any usuage of the method with corrections for the false rings and hidden rings, etc. What we are debating here is a certain example, an example which is a bit old, not the whole method, so I think we could move on or else not get much anywhere.
quote: Yes, perhaps it is easier to find false rings when the date goes against your belief, or in the case of the old examples-when the date could "debunk" your opponenets' beliefs if you measured a bit less carefully...
quote: Cross-references may be a bit difficult when you are dealing with only a handful of specimens which are as old as they are said to be...
quote: I do not think that after such a find he would trust this as the best method to use... I must wonder, are you manipulating the data to fit your argument? You quoted http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2441 but didn't include these quotes from the SAME article: * "Creationists have shown that the Biblical kind is usually larger than the ”species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’ ” see my article Ligers and wholphins? What next?." and * "Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see Q&A: Ice Age), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes). Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era."I must seriously doubt your whole argument just from this cover up of replies to your attacks in the same article that you quoted... quote: Does he say they cannot possibly be found, or just difficult to find?...
quote: Perhaps these methods would be abandoned when dealing with the possibly oldest living tree which would bring you great fame? Humans are fallible, especially when it comes to fame...
quote: Of course, it would not support his argument, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist! When you write something, you do not want to confuse your readers... I'm sure that any one of us, as fallible humans, is fully capable of doing this as I have just demonstrated what you did with your quote...
quote: Perhaps this is so, but consider the above post and your own hiding used in your quote...
quote: This is merely a restatement of the point 3 points above
quote: Still, tree ring dating is in doubt when such and similar situations occur.
quote: I'm always ready to move on, considering the limited time and will power I have... But it seems we could debate this one point the whole summer and not get anywhere. I suggest this, we do it here like I did with Anglagard, you post your Old Age Correlations one by one, and I make one rebutal to each, we do this until we reach the end of your list, then you go through and say anything that you have against my rebutal and I what I have against that, through the whole list, repeat. So that way we can get throught the whole list in the summer with at least one claim/rebutal each. What do you say? Peace. Off topic, but is that your picture? Edited by Someone who cares, : Noticed picture "If you’re living like there is no God you’d better be right!" - Unknown
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024