Posted on 10/15/2005 3:44:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Show up, read the talking points, sneer at any disagreement, ignore refutations, rinse and repeat. The preceding is not a description of 1) the scientific method, or 2) an intelligent dialogue. Creationists could give a rat's butt about science, and any attempted dialogue with a creationist is guaranteed to fall one intelligence short.
I can't tell the difference between your sarcasm and your lies. Sorry.
Dealing with the debunking of my argument. I wasn't aware you were debunking so much as mocking and hoping that mockery would be mistaken for having said something useful. Like it or not, I'm not the one here with a position to defend. Yours is the one the majority of Americans reject, or to the extent they accept it at all, see the need to water it down and pick/choose what they will tolerate of it. I'm not taking a religious stance, I'm dealing with the logic of your own case.
Apparently, that isn't allowed. I really don't care if it is or not. You can't overcome your known abuses of logic and what logic has to say about your burdensome over-reliance on assumptives. Every assumption is a point of possible failure and of underlying lack of confidence that mounts as the assumptions proliferate. And you've proliferated them so very well. As a result, one need not involve oneself too deeply in your technical presentations, all one need do is look at your assumptions and see whether they hold up. Where they don't hold up, your theory fails.
And I've pointed to where your dating methodologies fail.
Now, your approach is to beg technicalities that attempt to skirt the assumptions. That fails. "But" isn't an argument. "But" is an attempt to sidestep by ignoring.
You want also to control the floor - any debator does. You've failed to do so due to approach.
Again, I'm not concerned with beating you guys up no matter how intent you are on beating on me. It doesn't bother me a bit. You are the ones who have a credibility issue. My attempt is to show you why and where.. and that it isn't difficult to see.
Creationists have zero problem with science and actually are responsible for it's existance in large part. It's amazing that you should have to be reminded of that in your attempt to divorce them from the topic by dishonest rhetoric. I haven't invoked a single religious tenet here if memory serves - not one. I've stuck strictly to framing of the logic underlying your position. You don't seem to be able to divorce yourself from the cult long enough to look at the logical framework honestly. The terms and modalities are inconsequential when your logic breaks down at it's base.
If you were to say two aircraft engines are identical in every way including performance, then state that one is better than the other, one need not be an aircraft mechanic to understand the flaw of the logic.
If you want to talk creationism, there are plenty of threads for that to be found. The only manner in which creationism has been invoked to any whit here has been as an excuse for your own copouts. If you guys want to stop playing cut and paste and start talking logic we can do that. You have to be able to deal honestly and circumspectly with the issues and thus far, all you've demonstrated is a cultist's propensity to toss epithets and ignore valid criticisms that more honest people in your ranks would agree are valid. They may not agree on what to do about it; but, at least some can admit it. In debates, that admittance is often dragged out rather than proffered of honesty. If you can't at least be honest and circumspect, there is no basis for discussion.
I frankly can't believe you're being honest here. Here, I linked this. Had you ever clicked upon same, you would have seen what I reproduce below.
Later you seemed to be unaware of the ball in your court, so I linked my linking of the same material. And if my characterization of your arguments seems mocking in tone ("You're not only comparing coastal Greenland to inland Greenland, you're comparing coastal Greenland to South America"), it contains no hyperbole whatsoever. You did exactly what I said.Claim CD410:
Ice cores are claimed to have as many as 135,000 annual layers. Yet airplanes of the Lost Squadron were buried under 263 feet of ice in forty-eight years, or about 5.5 feet per year. This contradicts the presumption that the wafer-thin layers in the ice cores could be annual layers.Source:
Vardiman, Larry. 1992. Ice cores and the age of the earth. Impact 226 (Apr.). http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=355Response:
- The airplanes landed near the shore of Greenland, where snow accumulation is rapid, at about 2 m per year. Allowing for some compaction due to the weight of the snow, that accounts for the depth of snow under which they are buried. The planes are also on an active glacier and have moved about 2 km since landing. Ice core dating takes place on stable ice fields, not active glaciers. The interior of Greenland, where ice cores were taken, receives much less snow. In Antarctica, where ice cores dating back more than 100,000 years have been collected, the rate of snow accumulation is much less still.
Links:
Kuechmann, F. C., 2000. Creationist comedy. http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kuechmann_cretin_comedy.htmFurther Reading:
Brinkman, Matt, 1995. Ice core dating. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
So now you've typed how many paragraphs of spew, and the closest you've come to dealing with what is wrong with your argument is the following question-begging wave-away.
Now, your approach is to beg technicalities that attempt to skirt the assumptions. That fails.
No. Greenland has coastal barrier mountains around the south. If you don't think that matters, visit California sometime. Seaward slopes wet. Inland, dry. You can't insist that Death Valley should be wine country because it's in the same state as Napa Valley.
Before you write another 500-word victory dance essay, make sure you aren't awarding yourself the Nobel for pig-ignorant idiocy.
This map shows multi-decade accumulation of snow on the Greenland Ice Sheet. Contours and shading show the annual accumulation of snow converted to equivalent millimeters of water. The blue contours represent the 1000-, 2000- and 3000-meter elevation contours of the ice sheet.
Interesting characterization of 545 and 546. It's why this kind of thing ...
You have to be able to deal honestly and circumspectly with the issues and thus far, all you've demonstrated is a cultist's propensity to toss epithets and ignore valid criticisms that more honest people in your ranks would agree are valid.... coming as it does from your side of the debate explodes my irony-meter.
544 and 545 were meant.
I've seen these numbers. And they matter not a whit to what I've said.
We all understand that weather conditions are different in different parts of the world too. They are right now, anyway. The problem is, once again, Assumption. Your first assumption is that weather has remained as it is today extending back into the past. That IMHO is an awefully stark and blatent fallacy.. blatent in that everyone is screaming about "global warming" now. If we've been on a warming trend for, say, 4.5 thousand years roughly - just to pick a figure (lol), that would make weather different every year progressing forward. This is just being "mr. Obvious" for one assumption.
Next, your cores have 135,000 layers. They aren't "annual" they are "event" layers. Each one representing a warm/cold event horizon. Any given year can have dozens of these. In a place where it's constantly cold, you still have warming trends that cause ice to melt and flow - such as antartica has. There are a lot of obvious questions then that leap out at us. One, most obvious, is that if there are only 135,000 layers in your best sample, where'd the other 4.5 billion (plus) go? rofl. Don't tell us, let me guess, the tooth fairy came and took them. Oh, wait, I forgot myself, you'd have to multiply that 4.5 billion (plus) by unknown amounts for each year, each season.. producing vastly more than a 4.5 billion number. So, if we play your game of assumption for a moment and pretend averages that we can't sustain, we'll have to guess at least 9 billion layers are missing. Your expected response is support for further observations I would make (and have) that you don't know how the layers got there (you assume it) and not knowing that, you can't account for whether anything is missing or not. You don't know. For all you know, that deepest layer is from geological day one of the planet.. literally, you'd have no way of disputing that it isn't. I mean, you might wish to quibble possibilities that you can't sustain because you can't observe them anymore than you can observe USGS data sheets for precip 4.5 thousand years ago, much less for 6 thousand, or 6 billion.
You rather have to argue that "annual" rings aren't "annual" rings in terms of Glacier Girl because of the exposure it gives to the wanting nature of your methodology. Yes, your guy knows the annual precip amounts in Greenland as of today. That's the only reason he can say "wait, these aren't annual" We must then put it on the level playing field and remove the data by which he judges because he doesn't have it elsewhere. Now prove they aren't annual. No USGS data, no precip data. Prove they aren't annual. And you can't use Glacier Girl's actual age either, you wouldn't have that for any fossil you were presuming to date had it been a skeleton there instead of a modern object.
Not a whit? This is a joke, right? Here's you in post 459.
For more fun, we're dealing with an idea of a core that is only 263 feet with Glacier Girl... [T]hey use cores from that location [the Peruvian Andes] measuring 422 feet and 553 feet respectively to date back over 2000 years.. At 263 feet [the Glacier Girl figure], we're 48 years old, double that and we're more than 2000 years back. somethin smells like funky feet. The funnier thing is they found an insect - stated in the article - at a 210 foot depth. I'm sure it's millions of years old (obvious sarcasm). I did try to find a date attributed to it; but, found nothing. So if anyone else wants to try, I'd be interested for the sake of a laugh.Matters not a whit? You're lying about what anyone who's read the thread this far must have read for himself. You compare SE Greenland to interior Greenland. You compare SE Greenland to the Peruvian Andes. Now you say it matters not a whit. Do you have any self-respect?
We all understand that weather conditions are different in different parts of the world too.
Earth to Havoc. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT!! Or you do but you've been lying about it since you posted the Glacier Girl crap.
We all understand that weather conditions are different in different parts of the world too. They are right now, anyway. The problem is, once again, Assumption. Your first assumption is that weather has remained as it is today extending back into the past. That IMHO is an awefully stark and blatent fallacy..
Actually, no. Science has long assumed, for instance, that the Triassic was very hot, whereas there were alternating glacial and interglacial periods through at least the Pleistocene and we may only be in the latest interglacial period now. But a YEC has a very limited view of the prehistoric past, so I don't expect too much from you.
Anyway, what you're saying about the past's weather being different from now doesn't help you. It has never been valid to compare Napa Valley and Death Valley. Your argument is bogus. It was exposed as bogus early on and you've been brazening ever since.
Next, your cores have 135,000 layers. They aren't "annual" they are "event" layers. Each one representing a warm/cold event horizon. Any given year can have dozens of these.
During the time we've been observing the regions involved, they calibrate to being annual. In the Antarctic case, they calibrate with some known volcanic events. This is in the material already linked for you. If the assumptions are false, why does the calibration work out?
Your expected response is support for further observations I would make (and have) that you don't know how the layers got there (you assume it) and not knowing that, you can't account for whether anything is missing or not. You don't know. For all you know, that deepest layer is from geological day one of the planet.. literally, you'd have no way of disputing that it isn't.
We have plenty of other lines of evidence that none of the icecaps are as old as the Earth. If you don't know about any of that, you're more pig-ignorant than I've been crediting you with so far. There don't figure to have been any icecaps in that Triassic time I mentioned. There for sure couldn't have been any in the Hadean.
I don't know why I'm wasting electrons on a sack like you.
You rather have to argue that "annual" rings aren't "annual" rings in terms of Glacier Girl because of the exposure it gives to the wanting nature of your methodology.
Hello? I caught you comparing ... not apples and oranges so much as Death Valley and Napa Valley. Now you're even lying about what your argument was. The thickness of ice above Glacier Girl is what would be expected for the time and place. You have presented no valid data for the number of layers. You are busted.
Again, you pick at specifics ignoring the context of my remarks. Remove your precip data for Glacier Girl. you don't have it. Now tell us what it represents. Absent your precip data, you've nothing more than an object buried in 263 feet of icepack. Thus the relative comparison I made earlier. If you knew the precip in another location for a time z in the past, you could correlate that said location might read differently.
You can't. You don't have the precip data, much less the weather pattern model for time z to relate your findings to. All you have is current weather and climate models and that tells you nothing about the ancient past - thus you assume. What I'm trying to point out through your attempt to obscure is the fact that all you have is assumption and you're beating on me with an assumption saying "you don't understand". I do. I just don't agree with your assumption because it isn't a given.
Point Two, for page after page you were trumpeting Glacier Girl as directly refuting the ice cores, but deposition rates atop Glacier Girl have been exactly what anyone would expect for THAT region. You were blatantly making a bogus argument of direct comparison and only shifted without acknowledgment to your present bogus argument when Trench Number One flooded.
Point Three. (I lied about there being two.) You haven't dealt with the calibration of ice core data with other methods including traces of known historical vulcanism. If it were all spurious and false assumptions, the calibration attempts would be a quagmire of aligning the impossible.
There is nothing wrong with the Greenland (or Antarctic) ice cores. Glacier Girl is somewhere else. Peru is somewhere else.
You said:
On the contrary, the masses at that time and before embraced their religion wholeheartedly.
bandwagon fallacy: concluding that an idea has merit simply because many people believe it or practice it. (e.g., Most people believe in a god; therefore, it must prove true.) Simply because many people may believe something says nothing about the fact of that something.
The supposed unsupported fact that "the masses at that time and before embraced their religion wholeheartedly" is a bandwagon fallacy. Just your opinion.
90% of people polled agree that the masses of that time embraced their religion wholeheartedly so you ought to agree too.This (which is what I said) is not:
The masses of that time embraced their religion wholeheartedly.The latter is a claim which I guess you (amazingly) dispute.
Just to try and make this really clear for you, the first statement above would be a bandwagon fallacy if I had been arguing for "their religion" based on its popularity. But of course I wasn't.
Before we discuss your next error, you understand this one right?
Yes, I know. You do that a lot.
I will try to clue you in.
This implies you have a clue to share. There is no evidence of this so far.
The masses of that time embraced their religion wholeheartedly.
Considering the overall subject I find this assertion hysterically funny. How do you know what they "embraced wholeheartedly"? You interview all these people? Or is this more "guessing" as to their personal viewpoints? Sure.
How do you know? Maybe they only embraced it because their local vassal said they must and they wanted to work the land. Maybe they doubted but followed along because they were afraid of Hell. Maybe it was the only way to get the Church to give them handouts when they were starving. The Fallacy stands.
You are splitting a hair that only exists in your own mind.
Before we discuss your next error, you understand this one right?
I understand you are playing word games to avoid the fact that you are wrong.
You are claiming the Merit of an idea based upon the number of people who adhered to it. The fact that the idea is one that you claim was "widely held" in the past is irrelevant. The idea has no merit.
To say that the masses of the time were willingly religious, is not a claim their religion had merit. Do you understand this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.