When and when not to debate trolls

For ID and creation science to prosper, the ability to communicate is vital from movies to books to social media to classroom to Sunday sermons. It is also vital to understand how opponents of ID and creation science use and abuse channels of communication. For example, the movie "Inherit the Wind" had tremendous impact on the culture in a way that was harmful to ID and creation science. This forum explores these topics.

When and when not to debate trolls

Postby stcordova » Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:30 am

Debating trolls is generally a waste of time unless one wishes to practice ones debate skills. Sometimes engaging a troll will sharpen ones ability to fight through garbage and get a point across.

There comes a point when it is useless. In this forum, when that point is reached, one simply starts a thread and excludes trolls. Notice this discussion was free of spam:

C14 is credible evidence fossils are young

In the meantime I'm probing if Thronton and others are just bluffing about Uranium being the primary cause of C14 in carboniferous coal. I actually want to see how strong a hand the Darwinists have on this one. You can see his performance so far. :-)

C14 in fossils question by Sal

I need to know I'm making a good argument since I will pass the challenge to students to see if they can find an answer to the question of how much concentration of Uranium is needed in a coal sample to give it an age of 40,000 years. Baumgardner said it had to be 99%! At which point you have a Uranium sample not a coal sample.

Thronton is playing his only hand, that is to bluff and bloviate, he's doing nothing in terms of providing meaningful data. That is a good sign. In the mean time, the other thread is troll-free, and once I collect enough non responses from Thornton, I will then let the record show, there were no credible peer reviewed articles found by Thornton that gave the answer to the requisite Uranium concentration.
Last edited by stcordova on Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

Re: When and when not to debate trolls

Postby Tragic Mishap » Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:25 pm

I debate trolls because I think it's fun. Plus you can never be sure when they are trolls or for real, so why not give them the benefit of the doubt? I've been known to troll myself sometimes, and it really is jusr for fun. Most of the time if you can move the discussion to a certain point it will start to get real. Takes some patience and some trolling skills of your own though.
Tragic Mishap
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 8:57 pm

Re: When and when not to debate trolls

Postby JoeCoder » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:06 pm

Nuclear Chemist Jay Wile spoke a bit about whether Uranium was capable of creationg enough C14 to explain the 22-39ka C14 ages that the paleo group found in dinosaur bones:

This is a really desperate argument because you can make a quick calculation. We know how probable it is--we've measured this for a long time. We know how probable it is for carbon 13 to absorb a neutron and become carbon 14 or for carbon 12 to absorb two neutrons and become carbon 14. These numbers have been measured long ago and we understand them very well. I actually made a calculation for an atheist I was having a discussion with to show this is utterly wrong because if you surround a gram of carbon with a gram of uranium--you're not going to get enough carbon-14 production to have the amount that we're finding. It's off by about an order of magnitude. These calculations are very easy to do if you know the physics behind it.

That quote starts at 21:38 in this interview. You should contact him for the details. Maybe he'll publish it on his blog so we can all see it.
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:00 pm

Re: When and when not to debate trolls

Postby Robert Byers » Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:18 pm

What in hell is a troll?? I never seeked out a answer but am constantly accusof it myself.
I am totally in ernest and on the make. I seek to conquer and persuade by words.
Yet on many evolutionist things I'm called a troll seemly in sincerity.
Accusation of trollism should not be made for people who fight this way or that.
Frustration should not lead to accusations about someone being a fraud in intents to discuss origin issues.
Its stupid. If trolls really are frauds about sincerity of conviction or debating then it would be obvious. People who persist in origin stuff are sincere.
Anyways I see everyone accuses of trollsism for people that are just clumbsy in making a case. Or sloppy about details.
Evolutionary biology is not science and troll classification is not being very sciency either.
Robert Byers
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:57 pm

Re: When and when not to debate trolls

Postby stcordova » Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:47 pm


Nice to see you! We started working through the Uranium concentration from first principles in earnest here:

please help poor Thornton
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

Re: When and when not to debate trolls

Postby Alan Fox » Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:39 am


You should invite Larry Morgan to expand on his theme of free speech. Or does Larry qualify as a troll? Perhaps you should attempt a clear definition of trolls and trolling. Maybe a genuine example to demonstrate the difference between a troll and someone expressing an inconvenient point of view.
Alan Fox
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:02 pm

Re: When and when not to debate trolls

Postby stcordova » Wed Mar 19, 2014 2:03 pm

Dr. Moran is a professor and textbook author on chemistry and biochemistry. This forum is ideal for him to criticize the ideas offered such as homochirality of amino acids and OOL experiments. The invitation is publicly extended to him and any scientist willing to offer scientific expertise in their fields is welcome.
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

Re: When and when not to debate trolls

Postby Barb » Fri Mar 28, 2014 8:20 am

Robert Byers: A troll is someone who posts deliberately inflammatory comments, hoping for an argument instead of a true exchange of ideas or civil debate.
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 6:16 pm

Return to Rhetoric, Performing Arts, Movies, Communication