' time' emailed me with the link to his reply on
Cross forum evolution debate thread on the website:
So this is to be a debate with 'time' spanning two different forums, 'time' on the link above, and myself here.
The moderation on the other forum I find unacceptable and biased, so there is no way I would or could discuss anything there.
And I'm not sure I can not be banned on his site:
quote:
If this is your first visit, you will have to register before you can post on all forums. If you post links, spam or advertisements of other websites, will be deleted and/or banned. Account will be activated upon registration and you will be listed as junior member: click the register link above to proceed, when logging in, best to select remember me box or you may be logged off by system after time. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. Again, to post you must login.
So I have registered with CARM in order to read the posts and make minor comments, but I don't trust them to let me post in full without banning me permanently and without notice.
So here we are...
time on CARM writes:
Cross forum evolution debate thread
01-30-17, 02:23 PM
I was asked to comment on some issues contained in a post on another forum. Time permitting I plan to briefly address the dozen or so points raised there. I see no need for the thread originator to post here, but I will give them the link in case they feel a need to do so.
Here is the link to the thread and post.
EvC Forum: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
I notice all of the points are solidly based on the same belief. A belief in a same state past.So really all that needs to be done here is to illustrate how all the points are actually religion, and not knowledge based or any real science.
I would point out that in his summation on 'the bottom line' he says this
"All these methods show the same pattern of climatological changes for the periods of overlap..."
Now that point has no real validity when we consider that the actual issue is not the overlapping climate changes, but the length of time this took. Yes, a pattern of changes exists. Now the question is, in what way does that support the old age, no God, no flood so called sciences belief system any more than a creation friendly, bible friendly approach?
The moderation on the other forum I find unacceptable and biased, so there is no way I would or could discuss anything there.
So here we are...
I notice all of the points are solidly based on the same belief. A belief in a same state past.So really all that needs to be done here is to illustrate how all the points are actually religion, and not knowledge based or any real science.
Always amusing when creationists try to turn science into religion.
Not a belief, but a basic hypothesis of all science: that in the absence of any cause or reason to think otherwise, it is most rational to think that the universal laws that govern the behavior of things act in the past in a manner consistent with the way we observe them behaving today.
As a scientific hypothesis it is based on evidence that we can observe for the consistency of behavior, and as long as those tests do not refute the hypothesis or demonstrate severe anomalies we can have confidence that this is the best approximation we have to date for how things work.
This denial of the science is similar to his arguments about whether we can
know time outside the solar system, and trying to mess time up doesn't make the evidence go away, nor does it explain the consilience in results obtained.
I would point out that in his summation on 'the bottom line' he says this
"All these methods show the same pattern of climatological changes for the periods of overlap..."
This is from
Message 12 so he has skipped over all the evidence and not tried to refute a single point.
Not a stellar start.
Now that point has no real validity when we consider that the actual issue is not the overlapping climate changes, but the length of time this took. Yes, a pattern of changes exists. Now the question is, in what way does that support the old age, no God, no flood so called sciences belief system any more than a creation friendly, bible friendly approach?
To begin with old age earth does not mean no god etc. There are many OEC (old age creationists).
Second we start with counting annual layers not just climate changes, the matching climate changes show the correlation between the annual layer methods.
In terms of clarity and to provide the latest information on these methods I will be replying on a news thread, as it appears that 'time' may not stay on topic or address the issues here.
So I plan to post my replies here, let him know and then copy his replies here and continue.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .