Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Skip to search.
 

2nd response to Greene

Expand Messages
  • Jerry McDonald
    (Moderator s Note to Jerry: If you would add your challenge2.org e-mail address as a member of this list, you could save me some trouble and more quickly
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 29, 2010
      (Moderator's Note to Jerry: If you would add your "challenge2.org" e-mail address as a member of this list, you could save me some trouble and more quickly have your messages posted. Otherwise, you might use your other e-mail address that is already registered as a member in unmoderated status.-RLBaty)


      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

      McDonald:

      Did I not give the "constituent element"� argument? Did I not give three elements
      to back up that argument (1) archaeology, (2) population statistics, and (3)
      geology? You seem to think that the only argument that I was allowed to use was
      geology. Well, it's a good thing I did use archaeology and population statistics
      because had I gone with just geology, you would have had nothing to write about,
      and we would still be waiting for any part of your first rebuttal. Whether you
      like it or not archaeology and population statistics are sciences that are just
      as valid in determining the age of the earth as geology is. Your whining about
      them not being valid arguments and geology being the only valid argument is
      evident of the fact that you know absolutely nothing about this subject and that
      you have absolutely no business debating it. When I take into consideration you
      having drug this out for the last year and a half shows that you are not ready
      to debate.
      I made my argument with constituent elements to back it up. I am not able to do
      everything in one article, and I was hoping to give further proof for my
      argument, but at the rate you are going my social security is going to expire
      before we finish. You said that I repeated the same old errors, but that isn't
      true and you know it. I answered everything you brought up. I also showed you
      about relative time:

      Between the years of 1785 and 1800, James Hutton and William Smith
      advanced the concept of geologic time and strengthened the belief in an
      ancient world. Hutton, a Scottish geologist, first proposed formally the
      fundamental principle used to classify rocks according to their relative
      ages. He concluded, after studying rocks at many outcrops, that each layer
      represented a specific interval of geologic time. Further, he proposed that
      wherever uncontorted layers were exposed, the bottom layer was
      deposited first and was, therefore, the oldest layer exposed; each
      succeeding layer, up to the topmost one, was progressively younger.
      Today, such a proposal appears to be quite elementary but, nearly 200
      years ago, it amounted to a major breakthrough in scientific reasoning by
      establishing a rational basis for relative time measurements. However,
      unlike tree-ring dating -- in which each ring is a measure of 1 year's growth
      -- no precise rate of deposition can be determined for most of the rock
      layers. Therefore, the actual length of geologic time represented by any
      given layer is usually unknown or, at best, a matter of opinion”
      (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/relative.html).

      I pointed out to you that the USGS holds the position that the actual length of
      geologic time represented by any given layer is usually unknown or at best a
      matter of opinion. You seem to think you can accurately date them. Yet real
      Geologists know better.
      You say that you are going to sit down on Saturday and write out a response.
      Good luck. I'll be waiting to read what you have to say on the matter, but make
      sure that you address all of it and not just hurl insults which is typical of
      you.

      In Christ Jesus
      Jerry D. McDonald

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.