Proposed Rules for Debates

Of course your proposal is a sham, Pressie, since you know that the creationists here don't have the technical geological knowledge it would take to engage you on the level of terminological jargon you are presenting.But what could be very interesting is if you presented a Proposed Topic on the Clarens formation and what you think it proves about the Old Earth or evolution or whatever your main interest is, and let us all ponder the information and respond.ABE: And unless you want to talk only to yourself or to other geologists, please try to avoid technical language.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, I'd really like to see you do a proposal to discuss this formation about which you are obviously very knowledgeable. I'd like to know what you see in those bore samples for instance and what you think they prove.Nobody doubts the basic expertise of the geologists here, we have a different overview of what it's all about, that's all. And of course you may present your evidence on that level too.I'd really like to read about the Clarens Formation.

You aren't being fair to lokiare. There is such a thing as a Shotgun Fallacy. Put "shotgun fallacy" into Google. The first entry has this: And you can go to Wikipedia to get the rest of the sentence.List of fallacies - Wikipedia

Well, technically speaking I'd agree with you that calling it a fallacy doesn't seem quite right, although it is an unfair form of argument which is probably why it got that classification. And it IS classed as a fallacy by Wikipedia, as I learned when I googled it, so you can't fault lokiare for that.

Just to clear up something I hope: I certainly didn't mean to imply anything insulting by my use of the word "basic." I don't know why I used it, in a rush as usual I guess, because it's clearly not the best choice of wording. I think I must have meant something like "indubitable" or "all-around" or "complete" as I do think of Pressie as expert in his field, same as I think of roxy and Petrophysics and edge and other geologists who have shown up here. I have no doubt whatever that they know their work.Of course there is nothing a creationist can say about how we see some things differently that won't offend, but I do think that the age of the earth is NOT something you all can know, because I don't think anybody can know it, and that's IT. That requires trying to find evidence against the Old Earth which requires thinking about some areas of geology, but nobody is calling into question the expertise of the working geologists, far from it.ABE: Oh, and I DID figure that Pressie had special knowledge of the Clarens Formation because he's brought it up here before.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You can see how old a rock is by looking at it? That is an illusion, an illusion born of theory at best.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm sure you can tell what age has been assigned by the theory to that rock, that I don't doubt, but its actual age, no.

You can say it all you want, but if you are wrong about the exact age, and you must be, you'll never know it, will you?And thanks much for the insult. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

ABE: Thanks again for the insult. If I didn't get insults at EvC I'd feel I wasn't doing my job. /ABE.Listen, I really would like to see your knowledge of the Clarens Formation discussed here, really really would. If you think you can prove that the age of the rocks makes a difference in what you did there please present your argument. ABE: Just stating it doesn't make the argument, but I'm sure there IS an argument to be made and I'd really like to see it.ABE: If I may say so, I'd guess that you aren't the most articulate soul around so if you need help from some of the other geologists here to get your case across I'm sure they'd be willing to help.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.