Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Prof · 02-09-2004, 02:04 PM

OMG this is priceless. I've been listening to Jason Gastrich's debates on his website and have been awestruck at how poor his debating skills are. Watching normal, rational opponents smash up against Gastrich's Bible Bubble is eerily fascinating.

I've always wondered if he had the guts to show up at II to debate and here he is, getting smashed to bits while, of course, maintaining his superiority in the debate.

To paraphrase pieces from some other Jason Gastrich debates I've listened to:

Opponent: How do you reconcile your young earth theory with all the scientific evidence of an old earth. As only one example, old earth age estimates based upon radiometric dating - isotopic decay rates?

Jason Gastrich: Well, you are just assuming that those rates have remained constant (same with speed of light etc.)

Opponent: You agree that the Flood story meant all earth was under water at one point? Were did all the water go?

Jason Gastrich: Evaporation, some leftover became our oceans etc.

Opponent: But we have mountains on earth that are 22,000 feet high, meaning the earth must have been covered in at least 22,000 feet of water that simply cannot be accounted for via evaporation.

Jason Gastrich: Well, who said there were always mountains? I don't believe those mountains existed (6,000 years ago) during the flood. I think the land was pretty much flat.

Opponent: I yi-yi...

Opponent: Regarding the story of Noah's Ark: You say God properly condemned all of mankind to death in the flood because everyone disobeyed God. Yet at that time no profit had arrived to make everyone on earth aware of God's demands. Why punish all those who did not receive his orders and plan for mankind?

Jason Gastrich: Well, God transmitted his will to Noah. We know Noah was a good man and we can conclude he would have told people.

Opponent: But....the whole world? How did an old man communicate God's will to everyone on earth?

Jason Gastrich: You are trying to confuse the issue. He lived 120 years. That's plenty of time to tell people.

Opponent: But as a single man he was, by your assertion, building a mammoth Ark to hold two of every creature on earth. It took him 120 years...can you rationally believe that he had time to take enough breaks to ALSO tell preach to EVERYONE ON EARTH? I mean, wouldn't building a mammoth ARK and providing everything those animals need for the journey have taken his time?

Jason Gastrich: Well, I'm sure there were people walking by during that time he could have told...

Opponent: People walking by? How the heck can that translate to his informing everyone on earth?

Jason Gastrich: Look, I'm not going to discuss that anymore. It's clear you have this Atheist perspective that distorts everything you read in the Bible and you just don't get it, like most Atheists I talk to. Moving on....

The guy is a real piece of work.

Prof.

DetectedDestiny · 02-09-2004, 02:06 PM

Quote:

I'd just rather see a two to four page sythensis of the issue than twenty pages of charge and counter-charge where we sift through personal attacks to find a few good points.

Problem is, such summaries are not available and won't be if you don't start making them...

gregor · 02-09-2004, 02:46 PM

Good point

Although I'm not certain I have the horsepower to sufficiently set forth what are the better arguments versus what are the quibbles.

The debater (read Mr. Till) could do a much better job than I, and he'd earn points in my book (for whatever that's worth) by admitting when an opponent makes a good argument by listing the opponent's top ten arugments and compare them with his short rebuttals.

Kosh · 02-09-2004, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by J. F. Till
Surely Kosh was not being serious. "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible" Corrected and Explained" is a joke. The fact that it was written by Jason Gastrich, who bans opposition in his own forum, and has taken beatings here should be sufficient for anyone to doubt seriously that it is scholarly enough to change anyone's mind.

I challenge Kosh to take one of Gastrich's explanations of a discrepancy, present it here, and try to defend it. I will gladly serve as his opponent.

Kosh was not only NOT serious, but I never wrote that! Please check and correct your attributions....

Farrell Till · 02-09-2004, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh
Kosh was not only NOT serious, but I never wrote that! Please check and correct your attributions....

Go to the posts dated February 9th, and you will see the quotation attributed to you. I am glad to hear that you didn't say this. Who did? Whoever he is, he needs a critical-thinking transplant.

Kosh · 02-09-2004, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by J. F. Till
Go to the posts dated February 9th, and you will see the quotation attributed to you. I am glad to hear that you didn't say this. Who did? Whoever he is, he needs a critical-thinking transplant.

Nope, it's a nested quote, with the second attribution removed.

the fonz · 02-09-2004, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gregor
Good point

Although I'm not certain I have the horsepower to sufficiently set forth what are the better arguments versus what are the quibbles.

The debater (read Mr. Till) could do a much better job than I, and he'd earn points in my book (for whatever that's worth) by admitting when an opponent makes a good argument by listing the opponent's top ten arugments and compare them with his short rebuttals.

Do it yourself and think about it on your own. Sure it may be harder and it would take longer, but you'll get more out of it.

And remember, patience is a virtue.

Dean Anderson · 02-10-2004, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh
Nope, it's a nested quote, with the second attribution removed.

Mea Culpa.

Sorry if I confused you guys...

In a VBulletin board, if you quote someone who is already quoting someone else then the inner quote doesn't come through and you have to add it by hand. I added Gastrich's text by hand but forgot to attribute it to him so it might have looked like the whole text was by Kosh.

Sven · 02-10-2004, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pervy Hobbit Fancier
In a VBulletin board, if you quote someone who is already quoting someone else then the inner quote doesn't come through and you have to add it by hand. I added Gastrich's text by hand but forgot to attribute it to him so it might have looked like the whole text was by Kosh.

Thinking about it, who else would write such drivel like in the quote discussed here if not Jason himself?

Doctor X · 02-10-2004, 04:45 PM

Indeed, methought Kosh had drank the bong water . . . again. . . .

--J.D.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-09-2004, 02:04 PM	#81
Prof Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,450	OMG this is priceless. I've been listening to Jason Gastrich's debates on his website and have been awestruck at how poor his debating skills are. Watching normal, rational opponents smash up against Gastrich's Bible Bubble is eerily fascinating. I've always wondered if he had the guts to show up at II to debate and here he is, getting smashed to bits while, of course, maintaining his superiority in the debate. To paraphrase pieces from some other Jason Gastrich debates I've listened to: Opponent: How do you reconcile your young earth theory with all the scientific evidence of an old earth. As only one example, old earth age estimates based upon radiometric dating - isotopic decay rates? Jason Gastrich: Well, you are just assuming that those rates have remained constant (same with speed of light etc.) Opponent: You agree that the Flood story meant all earth was under water at one point? Were did all the water go? Jason Gastrich: Evaporation, some leftover became our oceans etc. Opponent: But we have mountains on earth that are 22,000 feet high, meaning the earth must have been covered in at least 22,000 feet of water that simply cannot be accounted for via evaporation. Jason Gastrich: Well, who said there were always mountains? I don't believe those mountains existed (6,000 years ago) during the flood. I think the land was pretty much flat. Opponent: I yi-yi... Opponent: Regarding the story of Noah's Ark: You say God properly condemned all of mankind to death in the flood because everyone disobeyed God. Yet at that time no profit had arrived to make everyone on earth aware of God's demands. Why punish all those who did not receive his orders and plan for mankind? Jason Gastrich: Well, God transmitted his will to Noah. We know Noah was a good man and we can conclude he would have told people. Opponent: But....the whole world? How did an old man communicate God's will to everyone on earth? Jason Gastrich: You are trying to confuse the issue. He lived 120 years. That's plenty of time to tell people. Opponent: But as a single man he was, by your assertion, building a mammoth Ark to hold two of every creature on earth. It took him 120 years...can you rationally believe that he had time to take enough breaks to ALSO tell preach to EVERYONE ON EARTH? I mean, wouldn't building a mammoth ARK and providing everything those animals need for the journey have taken his time? Jason Gastrich: Well, I'm sure there were people walking by during that time he could have told... Opponent: People walking by? How the heck can that translate to his informing everyone on earth? Jason Gastrich: Look, I'm not going to discuss that anymore. It's clear you have this Atheist perspective that distorts everything you read in the Bible and you just don't get it, like most Atheists I talk to. Moving on.... The guy is a real piece of work. Prof.

02-09-2004, 02:46 PM	#83
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Good point Although I'm not certain I have the horsepower to sufficiently set forth what are the better arguments versus what are the quibbles. The debater (read Mr. Till) could do a much better job than I, and he'd earn points in my book (for whatever that's worth) by admitting when an opponent makes a good argument by listing the opponent's top ten arugments and compare them with his short rebuttals.

02-10-2004, 04:45 PM	#90
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Indeed, methought Kosh had drank the bong water . . . again. . . . --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.