It was indeed a magnificent and thorough post. It seems like RAZD has soundly refuted all of Mindspawn's major objections. But I agree the he is unlikely to see it that way and will have to be beaten into submission over the course of several more posts.
They're both blasting away with shotguns (though Mindie's filled his with bullshit); I think RAZD needs to use some more precision here. He has the patience to write those long, well-researched and supported posts but there's so much in them that Mindie is too easily able to ignore most of it. RAZD should use his admirable patience to concisely refute Mindie's points one at a time so that he can't weasel out of directly addressing RAZD's points. For example, take a post to call Mindie out on the fact that the Lake Suigetsu varves aren't rainfall dependent. Or a post only stating that the various chronologies all accurately record the Year Without a Summer. If that's all he posts then Mindie will have no choice but to address it or unequivocally lose any remain shreds of credibility.
Is ignoring posts really an acceptable debating tactic? Is it really possible to swamp someone with facts in a written debate? I think not.
It certainly isn't an acceptable tactic. But I'm imagining (deluding myself?) that if RAZD makes such focused points as I describe, Mindie will have to be so explicit in ignoring the contents of the post that perhaps even he will feel some shame.
You aren't wrong about what would make a better presentation. I'd like to see what you suggest too.
Thanks to RAZD's hard work, it's all there already. I just think he should try breaking up the points into individual, hard to ignore posts. Make a post challenging Mindie to address the fact that the Lake Suigetsu varves are demonstrably not precipitation-sensitive. Make a post challenging Mindie to answer why various purportedly inaccurate dating methods all accurately date known events like the year without a summer. That sort of thing. Like I say, RAZD has already done the heavy lifting, he just needs to make it more difficult for Mindie to ignore his excellent points. This may be wishful thinking. We'll see what happens if RAZD chooses to take my suggestion. Probably more of the same, but you never know.
If in fact, mindspawn is as smart as you say, and recognizes that he is not being persuasive, then his ignorance and superficial reading is feigned
I tend to agree with this, although he may really just not have time to read every source RAZD was posting. Not that this is an excuse; I fully agree with RAZD when he says that Mindie should familiarize himself with the actual science before he declares it invalid. But I like what RAZD did in his most recent posts. He did what I was hoping he would and really focused on one very problematic (for Mindie) issue per post and made a concise citation so Mindie has no excuse (if he bothers to profer one) for not addressing the clear refutation of his objections. If Mindie continues to be evasive it may be necessary to make only one post pointing out one issue and making him respond before moving on to the next refutation. Right now Mindie is using the flurry of posts and different points to avoid substantively addressing any of them.
So why should talk about cherry picking or 11 rings in a year even be listened to until at least a minimum amount of supposition has been raised? Where is the 10 year old apple tree with 20 non annual growth rings?
I agree with this too and I'm glad RAZD confronted Mindie about his science conspiracy theory. The guy keeps demanding evidence for things like the correct identifiaction of the year without a summer (Which RAZD provided in spades in these last posts) while slinging assertions like the scientists are all cherry-picking data.
RAZD's latest post was an excellent idea and his outline for future posts spells the end for Mindspawn's evasiveness. It's all laid out clearly now, and when RAZD starts making him respond to each section one at a time then he will have nowhere to hide. Of course I'm sure he won't go quietly and will almost certainly never admit defeat, but it will be so obvious to everyone including himself that an explicit admission won't be necessary. I look forward to watching him squirm. Does that make me a sadist?
That said, never underestimate the ability of this particular creationist to invent 'facts'.
I have noticed his proclivity for that practice. But I'm hoping the more focused approach RAZD has outlined will make it difficult for Mindie to introduce more fantasies without first dealing with the robust refutation of the previous ones.
Unfortunately true. But only from the perspective of the uneducated or the galloper himself. Its effectiveness is more limited in the context of a debate with someone so formidably well-informed as RAZD. Not that being presented with facts will halt his gallop because, as Coyote points out:
He really is not trying to convince us as much as he is trying to convince himself
I think the hurdles of empirical evidence RAZD is placing in Mindie's path will eventually slow his gallop to a zombiesque shamble, although for the reasons mentioned above will fail to halt him completely.
In a written debate, patience overcomes volume. Every time. RAZD has not spared the ink in classifying the made up stuff as nonsense, refuting with evidence the stuff that is just plain wrong, and pointing out the irrelevant stuff.
In fact, RAZD has returned volume for volume, and I don't see much Gallop in anything he's posted.
Agreed. It only works when there's no opportunity for the galloper's interlocutor to respond substantively to the flurry of points. And RAZD has the patience to answer, which is impressive. He is, as you say, returning volume for volume, but his posts are very data-dense rather than conjecture-dense as Mindie's are. Hi latest post detailing the practice of dendrochronology, particularly the ability of dendrochronologists to identify false rings, really destroys Mindspawn's objections to that discipline. Now I'm hoping RAZD can exercise his considerable patience and post no more until Mindie responds to the utter demolition of his objections to dendrochronology.
Fair enough. I guess I was somewhat suspicious as a result of reading other threads in which he's participated where he suddenly disappears when even his considerable imagination is insufficient to allow him to object to empirical facts that refute his arguments.
Re: It's not at all easy being on the bottom of the dogpile
Don't get me wrong; I joined this site because it seems to be at least sparsely populated by creationists who were more than usually willing/able to have a real, evidence-based debate. I applaud Mindspawn and all others who are able to carry on this sort of debate. But it is nevertheless frustrating when someone expends a great deal of effort building a strong, evidence-based argument only to have to the interlocutor eventually disappear without providing a rebuttal or a concession.
Perhaps my post did not clearly convey what I intended i.e. that despite my suspicion, having been informed of his posting schedule by NoNukes, I am currently giving him the benefit of the doubt. This is what I meant to convey (perhaps too laconically) by "fair enough".
And now that everyone can see it, perhaps someone can weigh in on the lines representing the permanent wilting points. I'm somewhat confused by the fact that the moisture content dips below this line. The PWP is defined as the point at or after which a plant can no longer recover even when placed in a moisture-rich setting. Note that the PWP takes into account water retention properties of the plant in question. So how can trees survive there if moisture content dips below the PWP? Obviously they do survive, so presumably I'm just misunderstanding something. I think RAZD should make sure he understands what's going on here before directing Mindie to it. I can see him pointing out that the fact that the moisture dips below the PWP proves that the trees must be experiencing complete stoppage of growth and are therefore producing more than one annual ring. There may be a difference between the wilting point and the point at which growth ceases.
But in any case the curve does illustrate RAZD's point that dolimitic substrates lose moisture gradually and thus we shouldn't expect any extra rings to look like true annual rings, rather they should be morphologically identifiable as stress rings as seen in Message 51.
Edited by Atheos canadensis, : wrong message linked.