Re: Response To Greene
- Perhaps Jerry McDonald did have a couple of things after his stuff about geological overthrusts. I won't contradict him about that, because as I stated I was saying what I was saying only from personal memory (I haven't looked at the files since last year), and what I remember is getting up to his geological overthrust discussion and that that took up the next several pages. If there were a couple more items at the very end after that, I certainly don't recall them being there.
In regard to Jerry's response to what I did write, what I stated is correct. He does not deal with the problems I pointed out but merely repeats his errors over again. It's impossible to turn a logically fallacious argument into a good argument by merely repeating the argument over again, yet that is the pattern Jerry follows over and over and over again.
Of course, the overriding issue in terms of formal debate is that there is a proposition, and there is an affirmative and a negative, and it is the task of the affirmative side to PRESENT ARGUMENTS AFFIRMING THE PROPOSITION, which, interestingly enough, is something Jerry never did.
I'm intending to re-work (re-edit, outside of the PDF file, since I no longer have access to that PDF generation program; along with some very minor editing changes - almost all simple corrections) on what I did write, up to the geological overthrust discussion, and post that to the Young Earth Creationism group this Saturday.
- Todd Greene
--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, Jerry McDonald <jerry@...> wrote:
> Re: Elephants, cold weather, & dino dung; from Marion Fox!
> That's the kind of reply and analysis that makes your contributions to the
> discussion so valuable.
> And so it is I continue to wonder why it is that you haven't entered your first
> negative to Jerry D. McDonald's first affirmative in your "age" debate! :o(
> Got anything to say about that matter???
> Robert Baty
> --- In
> Re: Elephants, cold weather, & dino dung; from Marion Fox!
> In fact, in regard to everything I wrote on the subject, as far I recall (from
> memory only; I don't have access to the files at the moment), I did address
> every topic Jerry brought except only for the single topic of geological
> overthrusting. (I also noticed that in Jerry's response to what I wrote, he
> didn't bring up anything new, but merely repeated his same errors over again
> without any correction of any kind, as if I had not written anything at all. In
> other words, he completely ignored every error in fact and logic that I pointed
> out - especially failing to address the overarching point I had made SEVERAL
> times that he never produced a positive argument for his debate proposition in
> the first place!) I'm not that familiar with the geological processes of
> geological thrusts, and it would take me considerable study to understand the
> scientific context appropriately enough to provide a competent response. Right
> now I just don't see the point. I mean, the guy can't even address the numerous
> errors I already did point out, and he can't even provide an argument FOR his
> debate proposition in the first place.
> > - Todd Greene
> The YAHOO! group designed specifically to present a venue for Todd Greene and
> Jerry D. McDonald to present their formalized discussion on the scientific
> evidence of age, as owned and operated by Todd Greene, is found at:
> Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@> wrote:
> The archives of that list present Jerry D. McDonald's first, official,
> affirmative and no official, first negative from Todd Greene.
> Today Todd has given some insight into his perspective on the status of that
> discussion, with the posting of the following to the Maury_and_Baty list in
> response to my latest inquiry into the status of his first, official negative in
> that discussion:
> > From: Todd Greene
> > To: Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010
> > Subject: Re: Elephants, cold weather,
> > & dino dung; from Marion Fox!
> > In fact, in regard to everything I
> > wrote on the subject, as far I recall
> > (from memory only; I don't have
> > access to the files at the moment),
> > I did address every topic Jerry brought
> > except only for the single topic of
> > geological overthrusting.
> > (I also noticed that in Jerry's response
> > to what I wrote, he didn't bring up
> > anything new, but merely repeated his
> > same errors over again without any
> > correction of any kind, as if I had
> > not written anything at all.
> > In other words, he completely ignored
> > every error in fact and logic that I
> > pointed out - especially failing to
> > address the overarching point I had
> > made SEVERAL times that he never
> > produced a positive argument for his
> > debate proposition in the first place!)
> > I'm not that familiar with the
> > geological processes of geological
> > thrusts, and it would take me
> > considerable study to understand the
> > scientific context appropriately enough
> > to provide a competent response.
> > Right now I just don't see the point.
> > I mean, the guy can't even address the
> > numerous errors I already did point out,
> > and he can't even provide an argument
> > FOR his debate proposition in the first
> > place.
> > - Todd Greene
> I'll offer my opinion regarding those matters:
> I think, Todd, you need to post an official first negative to the Young Earth
> Creationism list in response to Jerry's first official affirmative, regardless
> of whether you can present an affirmative analyis of the geological details
> involving the issue.
> Being in the negative, it is not your obligation to present affirmative
> arguments; you simply have to present your objections to Jerry's affirmative
> You seem to think you've pretty much done that elsewhere, and I think you, and
> others who have considered Jerry's first affirmative, have done so.
> However, since the Young Earth Creationism list was, as I recall, designed
> specifically for the purpose of presenting a somewhat formal discussion on the
> subject and Jerry has, long ago, presented his first official affirmative, it
> appears to be most appropriate that you post a first official negative, for the
> record, regardless of whether or not the discussion continues and regardless of
> the problem in accessing old files.
> Todd, you seem competent and seem to have the time to post a legitimate, first,
> official negative to the Young Earth Creationism list independent of your access
> to any old files.
> I sure wish you do that.
> Your failure to do so, and for so long, while not a reflection of the merits of
> your position, doesn't look good for a number of reasons.
> Given your track record, I find it quite strange that, after a good start,
> you've neglected posting a first official negative to Jerry's first official
> Robert Baty
> 1972, 9:1, p.25; l966,3:1, p.49; l972, 9:4, p.238).Victoria Institute ,
> 1948,80:25).there are fossil specimens of Homo sapiens idaltu11,radiometrically
> radiometrically he means they were dated using (emp. mine) dated to about
> 160,000 years agoâ¦.â By14C or Radiocarbon (Carbon 14) dating. They were not
> dated using radioisotopes because you donât date fossils that way.Radioisotopes
> and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 1, p. 11).ã
> Todd says that he answered everything up to the geological over thrusts and that
> is all that he did not answer, but that is not true and he knows it. For example
> he said nothing about the following:
> In the past decade, studies of plant spores have been made in the formations of
> the Grand Canyon. Spores of the conifer were found in the Permian,
> Mississippian. Cambrian and Precambrian, and pollen of flowering plants were
> also found in the Precambrian. No evolutionary theory can accommodate these
> findings (
> Sometimes appearances can be very deceiving. In 1948 a startling observation was
> made at Mount Vesuvius. It was found that blocks of limestone enveloped in
> molten lava at Vesuvius have, by the absorption of silicates, developed into
> forms that are similar to Precambrian rock, for example, those found by Dawson
> in Canada (
> He never said anything about the Stromatolites.
> He never said a word about Pangea.
> He claims that he is not up on geological over thrusts. Well, I guess itâs a
> good thing that I made arguments on archaeology and population statistics then
> isnât it? Because if I had centered my entire article on Geology, Todd would not
> have been able to said anything.
> He said that he answered everything else, and all I did was to repeat the same
> old errors. Well, when he doesnât give a decent rebuttal, what else am I to do?
> I defended what I had written, with new material. The only thing that I was
> mistaken was where I said:
> He tells us that â
> I had not read down far enough to see that they had used argon-argon
> radioisotopes on this. However, I promised that I would straighten this out when
> Todd finished up his rebuttal. I also straightened this out in my exchange with
> Rick Hartzog:
> âDr. Andrew Snelling, Associate Professor of Geology at ICR (formerly with
> Answers in Genesis), continued the geological emphasis with a paper entitled,
> âSolving the Long-Age Isotope Dating Problem: Geology and Geochemistry.â He
> reported on the K-Ar analyses of recent (less than 50 years old) lava flows at
> Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand which produced model ages as high as 3.5 million
> years. He presented the view that the large age is due to excessive
> concentrations of Ar in the samples which render problematic the use of K-Ar and
> Ar-Ar as methods for dating rocks. It is not possible to distinguish the
> primordial Ar incorporated as a rock formed from that produced later by nuclear
> decayâ (
> However, I answered everything else in Toddâs first rebuttal. I think Todd just
> got way in over his head and doesnât want to finish the debate. Well, thatâs all
> right if that is the way he wants to handle it, but he needs to let me know so I
> can go on to other things. If I had taken this long to respond to one his
> articles he would have howled to the world about it. Whatâs it going to be Todd?
> Are you going to finish or not?
> In Christ Jesus
> Jerry D. McDonald
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]