Proposed Rules for Debates

This is why this is such a great forum. You can propose a great debate with someone. It will be one-on-one, but everyone else can watch it.
Just read the rules for it. Explained in the forum rules. Already established. Gish Gallops are not allowed.A peanut gallery is also opened where the 'peanuts' can comment.Oh, and I'm adding that scientists have got hundreds of years of scientific studies to back them up. That's why it might seem to you as if they post lots of posts and the other one only a few. It's because of the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence for scientific theories. Creationists have virtually nothing.You're welcome to try it here. Just follow the rules.Edited by Pressie, : Added last paragraphsEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Lokaire.I'm willing to have a one-on-one debate with you on the lithostratigraphy of the Clarens Formation of the Main Karoo Basin.We can discuss the different Members of that formation as well as the different areas, bore holes and geophysical evaluations of where those members of the Clarens Formation are encountered. It can also include the different biostratigraphical zones.We abide by the rules for engagement already in operation in this excellent website. Up for it?

Yet, creationists tell everyone that all those scientists who have studied the Clarens formation, presenting their research in peer-reviewed scientific articles; as M.Sc's; as Ph.D.'s; in mine modelling, etc. all are wrong. Without even one of those creationists ever looking at a rock from the Clarens Formation. Clarens (Town in the Free State, RSA, where those rocks outcrops were first described). Mountain (big, stacked rocks). Rock (A collection of minerals). Outcrop. (Rocks found on surface of the earth). Borehole (Drill down into rocks to pull out samples of rocks). Geology (A natural science studying things such as rocks).Simple enough?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Faith doen't realise that I got paid by a mining company to do extensive work on the Clarens Formation. For many years. Hopefully I can discuss the fact that I do have a day job?They don't realise that geology is a practically applicable natural science. That's why it's there. They tend to think that 'evolutionist' atheist (spit-spit) geologists just sit back in arm-chairs at Uni all their lives trying to theoretically discuss and 'proof' the Magic Fluddy wrong...Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Yes, we can. The earth is very, very old. Way more than a few thousand years. That's a fact. We all know it by just looking at a rock or two.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Sure can. I can see how old a Clarens rock is just by looking at it. That's after studying those rocks for many, many years. It's called experience.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Actually, we can study those rocks. They're there. We can get their ages. We get their exact ages.What you, Faith, think about those rocks really, really is of no interest to humanity. At all. What is of interest is what sane people can determine.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

We sure will know. Been there, done it. Lots of different and divergent methods to determine ages. And they all converge to the same age in the case of the Clarens. It's not an insult. It's just describing reality.

roxrkool, I'm looking forward to that thread on oil geology, as I know virtually nothing about it.I do realise that it will be a hard and very time consuming (without pay!) topic to do, as it will have to start from the basics.It would really be very difficult to summarise the work of thousands of the oil specialists, for over a century, in one thread. Good luck to Coragyps.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.