Replies

You've got a long way to go and like many others, when the trend of a debate is not to your liking, brand them with a name.

You can handwring as is the usual want of your type; but, I've no use for it.

No, I simply chopped through your statement. You stated that you don't like "if" preceding an assumptive - in the case of an assumptive from a source you didn't like. Yet, when "if" precedes an assumptive about carbon dating, etc.. you have no problem with that. I didn't name call. I used proper language and applied it to the situation. You're a close minded idealogue. And your position painted you a hypocrite - which I didn't state before; but will now.

BR>
You've chopped through nothing but stated another opinion without the ability to either prove or refute the position. I simply argued that the assumption "If the earth is proved young" is not a valid assumption
I would argue that if 2+2=4 is a valid assumption because it is based on a derived nomenclature, observation, and can be prove mathematically. I would also argue that if 2+1=4 is not a valid assumption and calculations or conclusions based upon such a assumption would be rendered useless, unless it was done to disprove 2+1=4. I would submit that for if the earth is proved young there is no overwhelming scientific evidence or in fact only the opposite. Further that there is no position of philosophy framed in philosophical debate by observation or logical thought for such a assumption. I would also submit that if carbon dating is a valid assumption because it is calculated based on the proved half-life of material and it has been observed and measured in our lifetime. Furthermore scientists and philosophers both would be interested in the revelation that any assumption predicated by "if" need not be tested either by empirical evidence of logic. A position that would infer that you yourself have elevated yourself to the position of the ideologue, (theorist) and the fact that you would accuse others of your same behavior would also suggest that you are hypocritical (hypocrite). "You can hand wring as is the usual want of your type; but, I've no use for it." I should not be surprised at having been typecast as a hand wringer or according to your nature a further accusation of bigot, nonbeliever or whatever suffices for insult in your world. What you have no use for is any thought other than your own and you seek to protect that thought, such as it is, with a active reprobate character. Of a further note I may be wrong. You state that you used proper language so you may have meant idealogue as you spelled it however, in error I may have supposed that you meant ideologue. If idealogue is a new word of your invention who's meaning has not yet been published but is meant to be courteous or complimentary to me I apologize for the error and thank you.