Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 6:50 PM
22 online now:
JonF, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,886 Year: 11,922/19,786 Month: 1,703/2,641 Week: 212/708 Day: 39/40 Hour: 8/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Basic Fundamentals of THE Debate (now open to anyone)
Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3945 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 79 of 121 (405258)
06-12-2007 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
06-11-2007 7:56 PM


Re: Reply to S1WC's swipe on the Moderation Thread
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:
There is no inner ear in the Lucy fossil (for gosh sakes LOOK at the fossil), this information about the femur still does not address the issue of walking correctly, you are STILL conflating australopithicus with Lucy, and you still claim that the knee was found after Lucy not before: it was this find that sent the paleontologists back to find more. My comments re LUCY still stand on Thread Lucy - fact or fraud?. You are of course free to post there as well.

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:
Why am I not surprised when your source for "corrections" is still a creatortionista source and not one that presents the scientific facts:

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:
The one that dragged that out was MurkeyWaters. The matter is really stunningly simple: you use the definition used in studying the science or you are not talking about the same thing and your argument is based on a false premise.

Analogy: I used the best soap on the market for washing my dishes in the dishwasher, but they came out with a bad taste and streaks on everything and I got the runs. Why? Because I used laundry detergent instead of dishwasher soap. You have to use the proper tools to come to the truth.


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:
IF you do we can agree to discuss the age of the earth, as based on the evidence, and avoid the evolution definition and Lucy's knee for now.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2007 7:56 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2007 6:33 AM Someone who cares has responded

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3945 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 81 of 121 (405546)
06-13-2007 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
06-12-2007 6:33 AM


Re: Age of the Earth in stages
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:
Thus by this one tree alone the minimum age of the earth is 4839 years and during that time there was no WW Flood.

This age is determined by counting the tree rings from bored core samples taken by Schulman in 1957.


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 06-12-2007 6:33 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2007 3:42 PM Someone who cares has responded

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3945 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 83 of 121 (405555)
06-13-2007 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by RAZD
06-13-2007 3:42 PM


Re: Age of the Earth in stages
quote:
Do you have a source (link) and a particular piece of evidence for this or are you just going on generalities for now. Or do you want to hold that in reserve until after the next piece of evidence. We can deal with this issue now or later, your choice.

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/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp

quote:
It's about laying a foundation for a valid methodology of puting together a chronology based on annual phenomena.

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2007 3:42 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2007 6:15 PM Someone who cares has responded

Someone who cares
Member (Idle past 3945 days)
Posts: 192
Joined: 06-06-2006


Message 85 of 121 (406431)
06-19-2007 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
06-13-2007 6:15 PM


Re: Age of the Earth in stages
quote:
ps -- this seems longer than it really is

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:
He is talking here about the "Methuselah" tree[2], with an estimated germination date of 2,832 years BCE, while ignoring the slightly older "Prometheus" tree that was cut down in 1964. "Prometheus," also known as specimen WPM-114, was 4,844 years old at the time of cutting for an estimated germination date of 2,880 BCE)[8]; this not only duplicates the age shown by the "Methuselah" tree, but extends it a bit further. Nor does he address the issue of all the other trees used to build the Bristlecone Pine chronology, ones from other areas

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:
in a different environment

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:
The intentional mis-direction is to a completely different species - in a different subgenus and that grows in a different environment - with the stated implication that they are the same.

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:
He knows his maximum error found occurred in a single year, not just an average error based on the total life of the tree - which is the only information he would have if he were totally unable to distinguish false rings from real ones.

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:
That Dr. Batten knows that there were "up to five rings per year" (emphasis mine) of false rings produced in the specimens he sampled shows that he could indeed find, measure, locate, distinguish and identify them in spite of any claims to the contrary.

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:
The issue of false rings does not invalidate the existing dendrochronologies, as false rings - and other problems - can, and have been, identified by the scientists. They have been accounted for by cross-reference and by duplication of climate and chronological results in different species.

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:
Even Dr. Batten was able to distinguish false rings in his samples and thus would be able to account for them in constructing a chronology from his choice of species if he were so inclined.

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:
he claims that false rings cannot be found

Does he say they cannot possibly be found, or just difficult to find?...

quote:
he provides false information about how false rings are found, neglecting to mention the method used in the science to account for this issue.

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:
he neglects to mention at all a similar issue of missing rings that result in the ages appearing younger than they really are.

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:
he neglects to provide his data and methodology as a true scientist would in a real scientific paper, and the only reason for not providing them is to hide the facts of how he determined the numbers of false rings.

Perhaps this is so, but consider the above post and your own hiding used in your quote...

quote:
he falsely implies that dendrochronologists don't take false rings and missing rings into account in building chronologies.

This is merely a restatement of the point 3 points above

quote:
Still, MIMIMUM CONFIRMED AGE OF THE EARTH = 2,880 + 2007 = 4887 years old, with no possible WW flood in that time

Still, tree ring dating is in doubt when such and similar situations occur.

quote:
Ready to move on or do you have more about the reliability of tree ring dating ... hopefully from a valid or reliable source?

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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2007 6:15 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2007 9:54 PM Someone who cares has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019