Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9078 total)
791 online now:
Dredge, Parasomnium, PaulK, Theodoric (4 members, 787 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 894,949 Year: 6,061/6,534 Month: 254/650 Week: 24/278 Day: 24/27 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radiometric Dating and the Geologic Column: A Critique
Admin
Director
Posts: 12814
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 112 of 113 (173438)
01-03-2005 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Anti-Climacus
12-31-2004 1:56 PM


Hi Anti-Climacus,

You've already drawn a number of responses, some lengthy, so I'll be brief.

In other words, those who wish to defend the geologic time scale must engage in special pleading and rationalizations...

A rationalization is when one says, "We have a drought because the sun god is angry." An explanation is when one says, "We have a drought because the upper jet stream is maintaining a pattern which brings in dry air from the north, and until that track changes the drought will likely continue." The rationalization has no evidence. The explanation has plenty of evidence in the form of weather maps and data.

Another example of a legitimate explanation: "The reconstruction of the space shuttle Columbia will be extremely difficult because of the difficulty of finding and identifying the pieces of wreckage strewn across a 500 mile long and 10 mile wide landscape."

Explaining the difficulties of dating rock that has been through cataclysmic episodes is not rationalizing. The explanations may be wrong, but they are not rationalizations. You cannot dismiss explanations that are based upon evidence by simply labeling them rationalizations. You must instead deal with the evidence behind the explanations.

Your Message 102 repeats in greater detail, and with some additions, the same claims you made in Message 60, but it addresses none of the responses to Message 60.

On a general note, it is effectively impossible for me to respond to 10 or more replies for every one of my posts...

Understood. But instead of replying directly to even a single point, you've instead taken your response as an opportunity to reexplain your position from scratch. That isn't necessary. The respondents appear to have a fairly clear understanding of your position and have posted some very specific objections. Please address at least some of the specific objections raised in these messages in your next post:

Message 103
Message 104
Message 105
Message 108

Again, there is no need to respond to everyone, we understand that you're only one person. But, as Jazzns says in Message 111, "Please acknowledge that you are reading these posts at least." When you address none of the specific objections and quote nothing from anyone's post, one starts to wonder.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Anti-Climacus, posted 12-31-2004 1:56 PM Anti-Climacus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022