You all have every right to discuss whatever you want.
One would *think* so anyway...
If you want to discuss just young earth evidences, then go for it.
I didn't suggest we discuss "just" those, I' suggested that we "focus" on those and make sure we examine them in depth.
I'm not going to agree to limit discussion to whether or not the arguments I presented from AiG are true or false though because that is off the subject of this thread.
Well first, unless we're discussing a specific dinosaur found in India, we're *all* "off the subject of this thread". :-)
But one of the recurring subjects in this thread has been disagreement over whether creationist "evidence" is scientific reliable or not. You keep showing us more and more of it in the belief that it's valid, and we keep replying that it's flawed. But before the issue can be resolved to any degree, everyone's off on another round of "well look at this", "oh yeah, look at this!".
Wouldn't it be better to spend a bit more time on *one* thing and dig into it a little deeper? Then we can get farther into it than "is so", "no it isn't".
Additionally, we can actually start to make some headway on the disputed point about whether the creation scientists actually do good work and it's just being discarded out of hand, or whether there *is* good reason to consider it substandard. There's no way we're going to convince anyone either way unless we spend more time on getting to the bottom of a few actual examples.
It's also a good way to avoid the "scattershot" problem. In too many arguments, the amount of information is too vast to allow a complete coverage in any ordinary discussion. And just trying to throw 32767 different pieces of argument or evidence into the thread is unfair to everyone involved -- not everything can be addressed by the recipient, there's just too much of it, and the presenter ends up feeling like no one has really looked at anything in depth and is just blowing it off.
Instead, I've found that a really good way to handle "big" discussions is to try to bite off just a corner of it to start with. I like to ask people, "okay, what do you think is your *one* (or 3 or 5) *best* pieces of evidence or argument -- pick your top items, and put them on the table, and we'll go over them with a fine tooth comb. If they turn out to be good, we'll have to admit that you've got a good case and the rest of your evidence is probably decent too. If not -- if your own "best" items turn out to be duds -- then you may have to admit that your whole case was far less substantive than you thought."
That's what I'm asking you to do. If you like, at the same time we can present our top 2-3 evidences for evolution, and you can see if you can knock the legs out from under them.
And none of this precludes talking about any other issues, I'm just asking that we make an effort to get to the bottom of at least *one* thing while we do it.
I started the discussion, I think in post 4, by questioning the dating of the new dinosaur find. I believe all evolutionary dating models are incorrect.
Right -- and that can be one of the items you put on the table if you wish (or at least the evidence for that belief of yours).
So, to limit me to the red hering of one particular post of mine ignores the purpose of the thread.
Not my intention -- choose something else if you wish.
Still, your own personal condescension in this post aside (I hope you may learn something), you may discuss whatever you wish.
I wasn't being condescending. I always hope to learn things from these kinds of discussions as well. I meant "you may learn something" as an additional incentive, not a putdown.
[Also, would you be willing to accept the idea that if (repeat, if) all or most of your evidences can be shown to be based on misconceptions or invalid reasoning, then perhaps creationist sources might not be as reliable or as good at science as you currently believe?]
No, I do not accept the idea. The evolutionists on this thread have outright rejected any creationist resource I have posted.
Um, I'm not sure how that connects with the question I asked.
Maybe I wasn't clear -- I was asking whether conclusively showing you that what you thought were "good" creationist arguments were actually quite flawed (if we could do such a thing) would it shake your trust in creation science in general? (I'm *not* asking if it would shake your beliefs about the Earth and God, just about the competence of creation scientists.) In short, would you say to yourself, "wow, those evo guys said these items would be duds, and they were right, maybe the other young-earth evidence isn't as hot as I thought it was either", or would you say, "okay, *those* things were duds, but it's just a wild coincidence, everything else that hasn't been challenged yet must still be perfectly solid."
The evolutionists on this thread have outright rejected any creationist resource I have posted.
I don't recall seeing that happen in quite the way you describe. I *have* seen people ask you if you can back up certain claim with items *outside* creationist sources. The reason for such questions (well, one of them) is that if your claims are beyond dispute, there should be some example of it from mainstream sources.
And frankly we're pretty used to discovering that "scientific" items from creationist sources are of poor quality. We don't presume that creationist material *must* be invalid, but if this were a horse race that'd be the way to bet. But don't just take my word for it -- that's why I wanted to spend more time on one or two creationist claims so that we could take the time to "unlayer the onion".
At least once, I was asked to post from something other than the two main creation website AiG and ICR, inferring that no good science is found at either.
See above.
To accept your proposal would be to back down to bullying.
Not at all. If those sources are as good as you believe, it would give you an opportunity to prove it to us.
Some creationists are better than others (as I have stated).
I'll agree with you there.
I do not claim equal authority for each creationist or for each creationist article or argument.
Again, that's why I suggested picking what you thought to be some of the best.
I will not succumb to the idea that creationism is just bad science, particularly from a group of people who are so attached to a theory that virtually no level of evidence would cause them to question it in the slightest.
Er, that was pretty much the point of my question to *you* above -- are you so attached to your theory that no level of demonstration of errors or bad science in your sources would cause you to question it in the slightest?
And I think you make an unfair charge -- you earlier asked what it would take to change our minds, and quite a few people indicated that they *would* change their minds if the evidence warranted it (or if creationists could come up with a comprehensive set of theory which better explained the current evidence).
But again, this is your chance to put it to the test -- try some evidence on us, let us all argue it around to see if it's solid, and *then* if we can't dispute it but refuse to accept it, you'll have proven your presumption about us. But perhaps we'll surprise you.
[In other words, may these be used as a "quality check" for creationist (or at least AiG) arguments, [snip]]
For the reasons stated above, no sir. Thanks, but no thanks.
Any chance I have changed your mind?
If not, how else would you propose resolving our disagreements? Or do you prefer to just continue to call us "BLIND" and "arrogant" and tell us we are like the three monkeys who refuse to hear and see and speak? Do you want to teach us, and learn yourself? Or just tell us what you already believe about us without giving us a chance?
1111111111111112 pieces of evidence, eh? Interesting number to pick out of your hat ;)