improvius

I think this was my favorite part. Here, once again, Dave demonstrates that he still has no fucking clue what "consilience" means.

Here's a clue, Dave: consilience means that Lake Suigetsu does, indeed, have something to do with the other dating methods.

ericmurphy

THEN WHY AREN'T THEY ALL THE SAME AGE, DAVE?

And how did "ice dams" form during a flood, Dave? Have you ever stopped to think about that?

You mean the ice age that your inerrant Bible neglects to mention, despite the fact that it supposedly happened during historical times?

ericmurphy

We're not open-minded about garbage we know for a fact cannot possibly be true, Dave. How many ways do you have to be shown the utter, screaming impossibility of your flood? Do the numbers 146-1-1 mean anything to you?

shirley knott

We really need to note that Dave seriously believes that no geologist has ever 'investigated the possibility of a Global Flood'.
Besides being nonsense on the face of it, it overlooks the other side of his inane objections to reality -- the geologists who investigated the Global Flood and determined it to be non-factual and, in fact, impossible, were all Young Earth Creationists. Every single one of them.
As were those who began the sciences of paleontology, archaeology, etc.
Amongst dave's many problems is this brute fact that he cannot, but must, deal with.
It was his team that determined that the facts were against them.
The honest ones moved on. The dishonest apparently taught Dave.
Or as another wag put it -- what do you call an honest creationist? An evolutionist, of course.

hugs,
Shirley Knott

There is one thing more wicked in the world than the desire to command, and that is the will to obey.
- W.K. Clifford (1845 - 1879)

ericmurphy

Have a look at the dates on this graph, Dave:



Do you think they might present a slight problem for your "flood hypothesis," along with a slight problem for your age of the earth?

How many such timelines do you think I could find in a weekend of searching that show evidence for an earth vastly older than 6,000 years?

ofro

I know my question is a bit late for this debate, but just in case AFDave comes back, could you please explain to me how the Flood created all these underground salt deposits, some of which are several thousand feet thick?

ericmurphy

Dave: "The Modern Synthesis is dead. Long Live the evolving synthesis." What does that mean to you? Do you even know? It's the full quote from MacNeill, and once again you are engaging in egregious quote-mining. You know, that thing you say you never do?

Silent Dave

I think the FDD rules may have modified since I first developed them to exclude this very scenario, but nonetheless, if I somehow ended up in debate with Dave, all of my statements after the first or second would have consisted, in toto, of the following:


For purposes of addressing Dave's arguments (and ONLY for said purposes), I concede the validity of the data that Dave has presented, and observe that this data demonstrates that the Earth is, at minimum, 15,000 (or 50,000 or 100,000) years old. This is inconsistent with the Earth being, at most, 6,000 (or 10,000) years old, which is what is required for Genesis to be historically true. Thus, Dave's own data shows the validity of my thesis, that Genesis is historically false.

I further observe that, for the (n)th consecutive round, Dave has not even addressed my primary argument against the historicity of Genesis, which is that the conscillience between the different dating methods of Lake Suigetsu is strong evidence that the Earth is far, far older than a historically true Genesis would allow, and therefore Genesis is false.


This wouldn't have made a huge difference to Dave's contributions to his debate, but it would have illustrated the bankruptcy of Dave's arguments quite neatly and concisely.


Dave (an entirely different one, thank goodness)

Agenda07

It's even worse than that: even Rohl's dubious chronology doesn't fit in with Dave's Flood date, his argument seems to be:

P1. 99.9% of Egyptologists give date A for the founding of Egypt.
P2. One maverick disagrees, and gives date B.
C. This shows that the issue isn't settled, and therefore we should dismiss both dates and accept date C (which not even one Egyptologist endorses).

It's quite sad really.

VoxRat

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I note - for the n^th time - that Dave has never cracked a geology text.

And here he is sermonizing to us about "open-mindedness".

Approximately quoting Dawkins approximately quoting Sagan approximately quoting James Oberg: "There's such a thing as being so 'open-minded' your brains fall out"