SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Projection.
So you failed the challenge, could not refute the proof, and cannot answer or refute the questions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
So you failed the challenge, could not refute the proof, and cannot answer or refute the questions.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope. You didn't. Go check the peer reviewed literature. Neither you nor your arguments are listed anywhere in it.
You are beginning to sound like the people you find in the Napoleon wards:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You did not provide any proof.
But I do like how you copy arguments that only apply to you.
I need to remind you that you only have an elementary school level of scientific literacy. That can be corrected, but you need to be willing to learn the basics of science first.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What are your credentials?
Sgt. Pepper
All you need is love.
If my memory serves me correctly, this is the third time you've asked Subduction Zone this question. Do you not recall asking him, or are you trolling him?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I see that you still do not know how to debate. I need to remind you that your credentials are worse than mine.
A debate is not about the credentials one has. It is about who can support their ideas. You totally fail at that.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He may be breaking the rules here. Ironically he keeps forgetting that he has even less credentials than any other person debating here. His attempted argument backfires.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What rules are you talking about?
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I have an answer to your last question.
First, there's no doubt that he has no expectation of convincing the likes of you and me that any of his assertions are correct. So why waste his time? I submit that we are not the intended audience. The idea is to chip away at "belief" in science and sway the weak minded to his pov. The motivation? I don't want to speculate, but usually money appears somewhere when you look into such things.
So what is the point in refuting his arguments? Just a waste of time? We'll never convince him of anything? True, but if I can prevent just one undecided person from being convinced, then it is worth it. You are doing a great job with your approach (attacking his "debating" methods rather than the actual substance) btw.
Why I suggested an in depth exploration of just one of his claims was to keep the focus in one place. If we allow him to hop from one subject to another, we will not get to demonstrate the falsity of anything. And if we can clearly show the error of one claim, it may be inferred that the other claims can be refuted as easily. It doesn't matter if he himself is not convinced. He's not the audience.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Please provide any answer.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The rules of the forum.
For example, even though you have been making incredibly brain dead arguments no one has called you a fool or an idiot or other pejoratives. That would be against the rules here. Trolling is also against the rules of the forum. You know how when you sign up for a new product that you often have to click 'yes" on some long list of things that you agreed to? Well you had to do that here when you joined. I did not really read the rules very much either. I scanned them and they are the normal rules for a forum where one wants polite discourse.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He gave you one. Didn't you understand it?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I have not trolled and my arguments are impeccable.
And learn to be polite.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh my! You can't tell such whoppers and not expect people to laugh at you. You repeated the exact same question three times. It was a pointless one since your credentials are even worse. That is trolling. That is against the rules.
And I have been far more polite than you have been. You need to try to lead by example. Not by hypocrisy.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
More debate 101 techniques because the truth and facts are against your false theories.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, you failed debate 101. I offered to go over the basics of science with you. You ran away because you know that you are wrong. The offer is still open. The basics that I we discuss will be the basics of all of the sciences, not just of evolution.
But every creationist that I have made that offer to chickens out and runs away. I doubt if you will be any different.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
What came first, the chicken or the egg? If you are going to put that off and try to work back to the first egg, what came first that egg of the creature that laid it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is a silly question. You used a false dichotomy. It fails due to that.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So again you do not know. It was the chicken.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, eggs existed hundreds of millions of years before chickens. And remember, you refuse to learn the basics of science. That means that you are unable to debate against that point. At least you cannot do so without looking foolish.