A plan for a better debate with 1inChrist...

gnome

Penultimate Amazing
gnome
Joined
Aug 5, 2001
Messages
14,865
The pattern I see is: 1inChrist posts... half a dozen people post responses and questions... 1inChrist posts a response to only one or two of those... another dozen people respond... another singular response from 1inChrist...

1inChrist may feel ganged up on, which is why so many points are left unaddressed.

I propose when a debate starts with this poster, we designate someone to respond, and everyone else stays on the sidelines... (or submits suggestions to the responder via PM) ... it'll be harder for 1inChrist to avoid the issues, that way.
 
gnome said:
The pattern I see is: 1inChrist posts... half a dozen people post responses and questions... 1inChrist posts a response to only one or two of those... another dozen people respond... another singular response from 1inChrist...

1inChrist may feel ganged up on, which is why so many points are left unaddressed.

I propose when a debate starts with this poster, we designate someone to respond, and everyone else stays on the sidelines... (or submits suggestions to the responder via PM)
Click to expand...
I do think this is a good suggestion, however...
... it'll be harder for 1inChrist to avoid the issues, that way.
Click to expand...
...I also think you underestimate him. :p
 
I, too, think this is a good suggestion but I just don't know how practical it will be.

From our experiences, I think we have a pretty good idea of what we're dealing with here.

1inC obviously has a life-long belief system that is etched in granite. Additionally, 1inC has pursued a life-long quest for validation of that belief system by selectively filtering information that verifies that system and rejects those that contradicts it.

In his rejection of contrary information, 1inC has remained ignorant of what we may consider "basic" understanding of science and of scientific information. Instead, in attempting to validate himself, 1inC has chosen to believe the tired "talked off" explanations we so often here from fundamentalists.

In short, I think it's hopeless!:(
 
May I suggest the evidence that Dinosaurs existed long before man, and its implications that:
A) Evolution has more evidence than creationism (as in, there is no evidence for creationism)
B) The Earth is much older than the Bible claims and the Bible does not make reference to, or even convey any knowledge of, extinct species
C) If the Bible is wrong about this then what else is it wrong about?

Edited because I misspelt extinct
 
May I suggest the evidence that Dinosaurs existed long before man, and its implications that:
A) Evolution has more evidence than creationism (as in, there is no evidence for creationism)
B) The Earth is much older than the Bible claims and the Bible does not make reference to, or even convey any knowledge of, extinct species
C) If the Bible is wrong about this then what else is it wrong about?
Click to expand...

So a debate about the age of the earth?
 
Well primarily a debate that dinosaurs existed long before man.

I.e. that the two species never encountered one another and were seperated by at least millions of years.

Edited to add: Okay races not species (or whatever the correct term is)
 
Ashles said:
Well primarily a debate that dinosaurs existed long before man.

I.e. that the two species never encountered one another and were seperated by at least millions of years.
Click to expand...

Ok but the whole thing about the Bible being incorrect and stuff like that no. Proving evolution and prehistoric dinos does not disprove the Bible. Let's keep this a strict debate on whether or not dinosaurs and man ever walked the earth together.
 
Well here's how I see this working. Someone can post an argument or some evidence, and then no-one else should post until you reply to it. that way you will be dealing with one post at a time.

For example I will start with the simple claim that dinosaur fossils show up in rock layers that are thought to be exttremely old. They do not share those layers with human fossils.

Now I am no geologist so if you rebut this claim then I shgall leave the answer to someone else.

Fair by you?

Also - no just posting a link as your entire answer. We have to explain our standpoint to a certain degree (even if no better than I have there) and we can use links as backup reference.
 
Now, now Rob. A debate protocol has been established. Whether we think 1 inChrist is a troll or not is irrelevant to this thread. He has agreed to debate an issue, so we let him do so.
 
For example I will start with the simple claim that dinosaur fossils show up in rock layers that are thought to be exttremely old. They do not share those layers with human fossils.
Click to expand...

Dating methods are based on assumptions, here's a quote:

There are two basic assumptions in the radiocarbon method. One is that the carbon 14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle is constant. The other is that the cosmic ray flux has been essentially constant—at least on a scale of centuries."—J.L. Kulp, "The Carbon 14 Method of Age Determination," in Scientific Monthly, November 1952, p. 261

Also:

A mastodon skeleton, found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat."—Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.
 
((butts his way in))

Remember. The goal here should not be to change this goomba's mind. If that is all you hope to accomplish, go and get a root canal done while an alligator is munching on your testicles. It will be much less painful.

Discuss primarly for the lurkers who may see some validity to his crap, but are not so thick in the head that they can't be swayed.

Let's have a sensible discussion on the points raised and not worry about whether or not this one person gets it. Think of the wider audience.

((walks away thinking about a root canal))
 
1inChrist said:
Dating methods are based on assumptions, here's a quote:

There are two basic assumptions in the radiocarbon method. One is that the carbon 14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle is constant. The other is that the cosmic ray flux has been essentially constant—at least on a scale of centuries."—J.L. Kulp, "The Carbon 14 Method of Age Determination," in Scientific Monthly, November 1952, p. 261

Also:

A mastodon skeleton, found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat."—Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.
Click to expand...
Please, do really believe that, that dinos walked earth beside humans? I'm sorry but I really can't understand how you can believe such profoundly bad science? Could it be that religion has blinded you, not science?
 
Anders said:
Please, do you really believe that, that dinos walked earth beside humans? I'm sorry but I really can't understand how you can believe such profoundly bad science? Could it be that religion has blinded you, not science?
Click to expand...
 
Please, do really believe that, that dinos walked earth beside humans? I'm sorry but I really can't understand how you can believe such profoundly bad science? Could it be that religion has blinded you, not science?
Click to expand...

What about dragons? Nearly ever culture has stories of dragons and big creatures. The Bible, for one mentions behemoths. The problem lies when people classify certain history as ''mythology''. Dinosaur bones PROVE that these dragons actually lived, lived and walked with humans. The methods used to dating these bones are totally flawed. Is it not reasonable to believe that they walked with man when they are recorded in almost every culture?
 
1inChrist said:
What about dragons? Nearly ever culture has stories of dragons and big creatures. The Bible, for one mentions behemoths. The problem lies when people classify certain history as ''mythology''. Dinosaur bones PROVE that these dragons actually lived, lived and walked with humans. The methods used to dating these bones are totally flawed. Is it not reasonable to believe that they walked with man when they are recorded in almost every culture?
Click to expand...
once again, reminded of Idiot Wind. please, continue
 
Is it not reasonable to believe that they walked with man when they are recorded in almost every culture?
Click to expand...
It is important to distinguish between stories and Recorded Fact.

Nearly every culture talks of magic and many cultures talk of lightning being cast down by Gods. It doesn't make these things true.

Most cultures believed rain could be brought by prayer. We don't think this now.

This is not evidence - it is stories. If you can't distinguish between these two then you will be unable to debate in any serious way.

Dinosaur bones PROVE that these dragons actually lived, lived and walked with humans
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. Dinosaur bones prove only that dinosaurs existed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom