That's what I did on this thread. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any creationists here who are arguing their position and interacting. Also, non-structured threads can get overwhelming, so I'd prefer a more structured format, with set rules.
I'm wanting to get an in-depth discussion of (preferably) a few key arguments from both sides. It doesn't have to be an oral debate; it can be in whatever format. Do you know of any debates fitting this format? If this has never happened to your knowledge, what would you say is the closest thing?
I'll probably need to search my self. (Also for clarification, my reference to "flooding arguments" was not specifically about the global flood but about overwhelming an opponent with arguments.)
Thanks for the heads up. I agree that debate tactics in which you flood a list of arguments are not reliable. However, there are debates where participants stick to a few (e.g., three) arguments each, each side developing rebuttals. It's unfortunate if this hasn't happened to your knowledge, but...
You're right about me missing it. The closest I was able to see was this statement: "The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge." This definitely doesn't sound like...
Okay, so if C14 entered the oil itself, it could be detected despite any treatments. This seems to make sense; I'm sure there are counterrebuttals and counter-counterrebuttals, but as of now, there's nothing more for me to say. I wonder if any creationists have done debates on this (other than...
I finally got around to clicking the link about the C14 date of old oil, and it turns out to be short, lol! Anyway, about the contamination argument, the AiG article says that "for thirty years AMS radiocarbon laboratories have subjected all samples, before they carbon-14 date them, to repeated...
Thanks for the reply! Because carbon-14 doesn't last very long, it isn't a good way to determine the age of something more than 58,000 years old. However, since carbon-14 should be zero (or close to zero, given error, of course) for something millions of years old, couldn't this suggest it can...