frame
Check out our new "Formal" Debating!

What is Devil's Tower?

Opening Argument

ErfisflatErfisflat 750 Pts
edited August 26 in Earth Science


Scientism's explanation:
The igneous material that forms the Tower is a phonolite porphyry intruded about 40.5 million years ago, a light to dark-gray or greenish-gray igneous rock with conspicuous crystals of white feldspar. As the magma cooled, hexagonal (and sometimes 4-, 5-, and 7-sided) columns formed.


Magma? Seriously? They must think we are fools to believe such horsesh!t. This beautiful structure was not formed from an old volcano.


Anyone whose seen magma will be able to verify that magma doesn't cool in nearly perfectly straight hexagonal shoots like that. Let's just compare magma to devil's tower.



Are geologists smoking crack? Turning a blind eye? These hexagonal patterns have only been found with and by intelligent design. 



More importantly, plants.


So let's now compare devils tower and other geological features to plants.







Is your mind opened? Take a look at these pictures from the petrified forest.


Scientisms claim: Petrified wood is a fossil. It forms when plant material is buried by sediment and protected from decay due to oxygen and organisms. Then, groundwater rich in dissolved solids flows through the sediment, replacing the original plant material with silica, calcite, pyrite, or another inorganic material such as opal.

So, according to science, these "trees"(probably branches from the tree in the background) fell, chopped themselves up...



Then were quickly buried somehow so that instead of ROTTING, like everything else we have ever observed does, were slowly replaced by gemstones in flowing water? I don't know about anyone else, but I can tell when my leg is getting pulled. I'm not making any claims here, just asking questions, but what if...







Source: https://www.secretenergy.com/news/are-these-giant-prehistoric-trees/
passedbillEvidenceSilverishGoldNovaWoodenWood
  1. What is Devil's Tower?

    6 votes
    1. A tree stump!
      100.00%
    2. An old volcano!
        0.00%
Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

«1

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • Is an old volcano, magma can dye like that. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 750 Pts
    @passedbill

    Is this something that can be observed or are you just parroting what you've been sold?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • EvidenceEvidence 253 Pts
    What I want to know is the real story behind Jack the Giant Slayer?
    I know we have historical document in the Bible talking about Giants, like when Joshua led the Children of Israel to the Promised Land, the men reported
    seeing people so big, that they felt like grasshoppers in comparison. These photos give a whole new meaning to those stories!
    Erfisflat
  • Do you think J.R.R. Tolkein actually visited Middle Earth?
    I personally think Tolkein's books were works of pure fiction. Tolkein found inspiration in certain geological landmarks and locations.
    As for the Bible. Mythology at best. Loosely based on actual people and places.
    As for the Devil's Tower. If it had been named the Rocky Mountain and had not been immortalised in a movie, you probably wouldn't be the slightest bit interested.

  • ErfisflatErfisflat 750 Pts
    Do you think J.R.R. Tolkein actually visited Middle Earth?
    I personally think Tolkein's books were works of pure fiction. Tolkein found inspiration in certain geological landmarks and locations.
    As for the Bible. Mythology at best. Loosely based on actual people and places.
    As for the Devil's Tower. If it had been named the Rocky Mountain and had not been immortalised in a movie, you probably wouldn't be the slightest bit interested.

    I think he may have visited somewhere, middle earth is a term related to and dependent on a spherical, hollow earth, like admiral Byrd claims to have visited but calls it "the land beyond the south pole"



    But, as I've established,  the earth isn't spherical, and the hollow idea is likewise out. Hollow earth is likely more to my left.






    It's interesting, but I can't know for sure until they open Antarctica up.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • EvidenceEvidence 253 Pts
    Come on people, .. I mean just look at those pictures, could all this evidence be just a coincidence that those mountains "look like" cut down trees?
    Have we been so brainwashed with sci-fi fairytale stories that we are afraid to look at reality that we may have been lied to about everything regarding space, planets, galaxies, redshifts, black holes, bosons, quarks, leptons and clip-ons!?
    Is everyone here OK with being called an "evolving ape"?





    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 750 Pts
    Evidence said:
    Come on people, .. I mean just look at those pictures, could all this evidence be just a coincidence that those mountains "look like" cut down trees?
    Have we been so brainwashed with sci-fi fairytale stories that we are afraid to look at reality that we may have been lied to about everything regarding space, planets, galaxies, redshifts, black holes, bosons, quarks, leptons and clip-ons!?
    Is everyone here OK with being called an "evolving ape"?





    I would like to know if there is anyone here that believes that these multi-mile high trees could have existed on a spherical spinning ball... I can see it wobbling through space now...
    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • I'm surprised there are no arguments against this, @Coveny,you pretend to know alot, care to take a stab?
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • "Anyone whose seen magma will be able to verify that magma doesn't cool in nearly perfectly straight hexagonal shoots like that. Let's just compare magma to devil's tower."

    That's not what science claims happens. The lava cools in a general mass, but it can crack in straight lines for reasons that you could check if you bothered to look.

    For reference:

    http://www.lgoehring.com/M.Sc._files/Goehring_MSc.pdf
    http://blogs.agu.org/georneys/2012/11/18/geology-word-of-the-week-c-is-for-columnar-jointing/

    "Are geologists smoking crack? Turning a blind eye? These hexagonal patterns have only been found with and by intelligent design. "

    This is a ridiculous claim, as well as a logical fallacy as you are begging the question. Not only that but your claim that all the examples you list are examples of intelligent design is a massive unsupported claim that flies in the face of the vast scientific consensus and evidence on evolution.

    but ignoring all the massive holes in your argument and focusing on your actual claim:

    What does ice look like if you put it under a microscope?



    You'll note that completely contrary to your claim is is formed of series of hexagons. Minerology in general is a great example of this type of thing where because of their physical structure, crystals of a certain type will form the same shape and structure in a repeating fashion. By personal favourite is Bismuth:



    This is just how crystals form because of their properties. It's easier to see when you do it in a lab because it's easy to get a large sample of a pure material without a load of contaminants and room to grow, but even in nature you can see this, for instance a quartz is a common gem which will always try to attain a hexagonal shape:



    "So let's now compare devils tower and other geological features to plants.

    Is your mind opened?"

    No. "Here's some things that look kinda like some other things if you squint and ignore things like scale, scientific evidence, material, etc" is not a mind opener. 

    Is your mind opened? Take a look at these pictures from the petrified forest.

    "So, according to science, these "trees"(probably branches from the tree in the background) fell, chopped themselves up..."

    No, they aren't. Care to show where they made this claim?

    "Then were quickly buried somehow so that instead of ROTTING, like everything else we have ever observed does, were slowly replaced by gemstones in flowing water? I don't know about anyone else, but I can tell when my leg is getting pulled."

    That's not actual evidence, that's just you dismissing the work of experts out of hand for no reason other than it challenges your world view.
    Erfisflat
  • CovenyCoveny 398 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    I'm surprised there are no arguments against this, @Coveny,you pretend to know alot, care to take a stab?
    So what bats*** are you two spreading this time? 

    Those aren't hexagonal those are squares. Oh they are big trees? ROFL And you talk about jack and the bean stalk? ROFL Oh wow man, just wow. You claim it's an oblong tree. haha

    Ok let's look up some info. You show pictures of magma on top of the surface for comparison to magma from inside the earth... not shocking. 180 feet by 300 feet so it is oblong. You don't name any of the others but some of them look much bigger. So the only way you get that flat surface is with a saw. Even if I can't look up the size of the others that means the saw would have to be 190 feet or more to cut it. Had you ever done any work with a saw you'd also know that to get those "flat" surfaces is a pain in the butt as the tree pinches the saw. And that doesn't cover the logistics of trying to make and use a piece of metal that big. 

    If you two could learn some critical thinking that would be lovely...
    ErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
  • Thanks for an opportunity to finally debate this.

    "That's not what science claims happens. The lava cools in a general mass, but it can crack in straight lines for reasons that you could check if you bothered to look."

    From your source.
    "def. Columnar Jointing:
    A structure that forms in rocks (most commonly in basalt) that consists of columns (mostly commonly hexagonal in shape) that are separated by joints or fractures in the rock that formed when the rock contracted, most often during cooling."

    From my opening post:

    "As the magma cooled, hexagonal (and sometimes 4-, 5-, and 7-sided) columns formed." 

    https://www.nps.gov/deto/learn/nature/geologicformations.htm



    Youve given no explanation in your own words, so what is your (opposing) position? Exactly what i explained? This is not just random "cooling of mineral" cracking. There are zero patterns in the dry lake bed above. Try again. Look again.


    If you have a different opinion than the one stated in your source, please explain. So far this is just an appeal to the stone fallacy.




    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • @Erfisflat

    You seem to have offered no rebuttal to the vast majority of the issues, problems and logical errors that I pointed out in your argument? Are you therefore conceding on all the points you have not mustered a defence for?

    As to the two points you make here:

    ""From my opening post:

    "As the magma cooled, hexagonal (and sometimes 4-, 5-, and 7-sided) columns formed." "

    This was then followed up by you saying exactly the sentence I quoted word for word and responded to. Don't cherrypick.

    "Youve given no explanation in your own words, so what is your (opposing) position? Exactly what i explained? This is not just random "cooling of mineral" cracking. There are zero patterns in the dry lake bed above. Try again. Look again."

    You're making empty claims again backed up by nothing. You state that it is not the cooling of minerals causing cracks, but offer no evidence. You state that there are zero patterns in a picture of a dry lake bed, but give no reason why we should assume this random picture of a random dry river bed should be representative of columnar joining.

    "If you have a different opinion than the one stated in your source, please explain. So far this is just an appeal to the stone fallacy."

    When you misuse fallacies like this, it harms your argument and makes you look unintelligent rather than the reverse. An appeal to the stone is an argument where you dismiss an argument as absurd without giving reason. If you check my post you'll find I did give reasons - like your various claims being clearly false as shown by the explanation and images I provided. 
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 750 Pts
    edited August 8
    "Are you therefore conceding on all the points you have not mustered a defence for?"

    I'm trying to establish your position before we get into another topic entirely, water and crystals (which in their many forms are most assuredly intelligently designed), namely how this was formed. I gather that fractures in the rock that "formed when the rock contracted, most often during cooling.", which was your statement, with reliable source, and mine:
    "As the magma cooled, hexagonal (and sometimes 4-, 5-, and 7-sided) columns formed" with reliable source, and how those positions differ in any way. I'm looking for an explanation for your initial statement: "That's not what science claims happens.".
    If you have an opposing idea for what science claims, other than what i have already established, I'd need to know what exactly. I'd also need to know if this is verifiable, testable and repeatable on any scale. Any other demonstrable cooling magma results are not hexagonal.

    "You state that it is not the cooling of minerals causing cracks, but offer no evidence. You state that there are zero patterns in a picture of a dry lake bed, but give no reason why we should assume this random picture of a random dry river bed should be representative of columnar joining."

    I gave a practice example of a cooling and cracking of minerals in general, since you've not given one. You give me water, and try and pretend as if water isn't the most intelligently designed creation of all,(aside form us) and crystals, which are formed in entirely different circumstances, and are another debate altogether.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Erfisflat said:
    If you have an opposing idea for what science claims, other than what i have already established, I'd need to know what exactly. I'd also need to know if this is verifiable, testable and repeatable on any scale. Any other demonstrable cooling magma results are not hexagonal.
    No you don't. if someone puts forward a position they should be able to defend it on it's own merits regardless of what other people's opinions are. If you cannot your argument fails and can be disregarded. So far you have done nothing to defend it on your own merits.

    I gave a practice example of a cooling and cracking of minerals in general, since you've not given one. You give me water, and try and pretend as if water isn't the most intelligently designed creation of all,(aside form us) and crystals, which are formed in entirely different circumstances, and are another debate altogether.
    Why would this be of any relevance? Do you think it is being claimed that all minerals will always crack in this manner when any form of cooling is involved?

    Erfisflat
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 750 Pts
    edited August 9
    Erfisflat said:
    If you have an opposing idea for what science claims, other than what i have already established, I'd need to know what exactly. I'd also need to know if this is verifiable, testable and repeatable on any scale. Any other demonstrable cooling magma results are not hexagonal.
    No you don't. if someone puts forward a position they should be able to defend it on it's own merits regardless of what other people's opinions are. If you cannot your argument fails and can be disregarded. So far you have done nothing to defend it on your own merits.

    I gave a practice example of a cooling and cracking of minerals in general, since you've not given one. You give me water, and try and pretend as if water isn't the most intelligently designed creation of all,(aside form us) and crystals, which are formed in entirely different circumstances, and are another debate altogether.
    Why would this be of any relevance? Do you think it is being claimed that all minerals will always crack in this manner when any form of cooling is involved?

     I am trying to determine your position. You've claimed that science does not claim what I said it does, while repeating the claim.

    And no, I do not claim that  it is being claimed that all minerals will always crack in this manner when any form of cooling is involved. I'm simply asking for verifiable evidence, or a practical example. Every other example we have of a mineral cracking from cooling show random results. Your kettle logic is diminishing to your argument.
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Erfisflat said:
    Erfisflat said:
    If you have an opposing idea for what science claims, other than what i have already established, I'd need to know what exactly. I'd also need to know if this is verifiable, testable and repeatable on any scale. Any other demonstrable cooling magma results are not hexagonal.
    No you don't. if someone puts forward a position they should be able to defend it on it's own merits regardless of what other people's opinions are. If you cannot your argument fails and can be disregarded. So far you have done nothing to defend it on your own merits.

    I gave a practice example of a cooling and cracking of minerals in general, since you've not given one. You give me water, and try and pretend as if water isn't the most intelligently designed creation of all,(aside form us) and crystals, which are formed in entirely different circumstances, and are another debate altogether.
    Why would this be of any relevance? Do you think it is being claimed that all minerals will always crack in this manner when any form of cooling is involved?

     I am trying to determine your position. You've claimed that science does not claim what I said it does, while repeating the claim.

    And no, I do not claim that  it is being claimed that all minerals will always crack in this manner when any form of cooling is involved. I'm simply asking for verifiable evidence, or a practical example. Every other example we have of a mineral cracking from cooling show random results. Your kettle logic is diminishing to your argument.
    You are trying to determine my position on a completely different point. Stop stalling and answer.

    Also in relation to your defence, it is illogical. I have stated your claims about how it works do not match the scientific explanation. Therefore quoting the scientific explanation is not a relevant defence, because my entire point is you made a strawman which did not match that argument.

     You also clearly lie here. You state "I'm simply asking for verifiable evidence, or a practical example". This is clearly untrue. In your last post, in the very point we were talking about, rather than asking for evidence you presented a picture which you thought should be treated as proof even though it did not meet the obvious criteria that would make it a relevant example and you provided no explanation for why it might be relevant despite all common sense. Please do not lie to cover up the errors in your argument.

    Your statement " Every other example we have of a mineral cracking from cooling show random results. Your kettle logic is diminishing to your argument." is also another clear lie. if you'd bothered to actually look at the links that had already been posted by me (such as http://blogs.agu.org/georneys/2012/11/18/geology-word-of-the-week-c-is-for-columnar-jointing/) you would see other examples from across the world of columular jointing in rocks. It seems that you don't even look at opposing evidence that is provided to you and just make meaningless claims to support your entrenched and unsupported views. I'm not surprised.
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 750 Pts
    edited August 13
    @AlwaysCorrect

    "You are trying to determine my position on a completely different point. Stop stalling and answer."

    I'm trying to establish your position on the only point in question: how these structures are formed. You said specifically that I was wrong about what science claims, what exactly is the claim? If you're going to state that I don't have a clue what geologists claim these are, then link to a site where geologists claim the same thing as I, I'm not sure what to debate against. I'm not stalling, and I have answered most of your questions, as respectfully as possible.

    "Also in relation to your defence, it is illogical. I have stated your claims about how it works do not match the scientific explanation. Therefore quoting the scientific explanation is not a relevant defence, because my entire point is you made a strawman which did not match that argument."

    That isn't my defense. My defense is what is logical. Saying that (or silently agreeing with) volcanos somehow erupted underground and ended up with a flat surface, and cooled uniformly hundreds of feet vertically enough to form straight, hexagonal shoots would be the equivalent to saying a Volkswagen plant exploded and a Ferrari is formed from the ashes. It has never been demonstrated and is a theory supported only by graphs, diagrams and opinions. This is the definition of pseudoscience. 

    "You also clearly lie here. You state "I'm simply asking for verifiable evidence, or a practical example".
    This is clearly untrue. In your last post, in the very point we were talking about, rather than asking for evidence you presented a picture which you thought should be treated as proof even though it did not meet the obvious criteria that would make it a relevant example and you provided no explanation for why it might be relevant despite all common sense. Please do not lie to cover up the errors in your argument."

    I don't think you know what verifiable evidence or practical examples means. If your position is that a volcanic erupted and turned into this structure, then it would be scientifically sound to either recreate the circumstances and compare the results, or make some observations from another example and form a hypothesis. Your solution is more "trust what the experts say" and "but, but, muh science book!" I've given another example of a mineral cracking when it cools and it is completely random, I explained this when I provided the picture. So your accusations of me lying is a poor attempt to refute my argument. 

    "you would see other examples from across the world of columular jointing in rocks."

    Your last attempt at a rebuttal does not prove your point by given an explanation of a cooling and cracking of any mineral, but you point out that there are other examples of this, my reply is that if devil's tower was a giant tree, why would it be the only one?






    Upon researching the list from your source, any structures still tact enough to see good "jointing" can be unbiasedly also seen as a tree stump.

    Evidence
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Coveny said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I'm surprised there are no arguments against this, @Coveny,you pretend to know alot, care to take a stab?
    So what bats*** are you two spreading this time? 
    "you two" im pretty sure I wasn't arguing for anything in this thread, but I'm pretty sure by you 2 you're secretly refering to me
  • Coveny said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I'm surprised there are no arguments against this, @Coveny,you pretend to know alot, care to take a stab?
    So what bats*** are you two spreading this time? 
    "you two" im pretty sure I wasn't arguing for anything in this thread, but I'm pretty sure by you 2 you're secretly refering to me
    Don't feed the troll
    SilverishGoldNova
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • Erfisflat said:
    Coveny said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I'm surprised there are no arguments against this, @Coveny,you pretend to know alot, care to take a stab?
    So what bats*** are you two spreading this time? 
    "you two" im pretty sure I wasn't arguing for anything in this thread, but I'm pretty sure by you 2 you're secretly refering to me
    Don't feed the troll
    I plan on starving him. Just thought he deserves his last meal. 
    Evidence
  • CovenyCoveny 398 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    Coveny said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I'm surprised there are no arguments against this, @Coveny,you pretend to know alot, care to take a stab?
    So what bats*** are you two spreading this time? 
    "you two" im pretty sure I wasn't arguing for anything in this thread, but I'm pretty sure by you 2 you're secretly refering to me
    Don't feed the troll
    As you can see you tagged me to get me to this thread... then call ME the troll in the same breath? ROFL 
    SilverishGoldNova
  • ErfisflatErfisflat 750 Pts
    edited August 26
    Coveny said:
    Erfisflat said:
    Coveny said:
    Erfisflat said:
    I'm surprised there are no arguments against this, @Coveny,you pretend to know alot, care to take a stab?
    So what bats*** are you two spreading this time? 
    "you two" im pretty sure I wasn't arguing for anything in this thread, but I'm pretty sure by you 2 you're secretly refering to me
    Don't feed the troll
    I plan on starving him. Just thought he deserves his last meal. 
    Sure you are going to "starve" me by not talking. Please don't throw me in the briar patch!!!!

    I really dont. Look at your second statement:
    "Those aren't hexagonal those are squares. Oh they are big trees?"
    Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

  • CovenyCoveny 398 Pts
    Erfisflat said:
    Coveny said:
    So what bats*** are you two spreading this time? 

    Those aren't hexagonal those are squares. Oh they are big trees? ROFL And you talk about jack and the bean stalk? ROFL Oh wow man, just wow. You claim it's an oblong tree. haha

    Ok let's look up some info. You show pictures of magma on top of the surface for comparison to magma from inside the earth... not shocking. 180 feet by 300 feet so it is oblong. You don't name any of the others but some of them look much bigger. So the only way you get that flat surface is with a saw. Even if I can't look up the size of the others that means the saw would have to be 190 feet or more to cut it. Had you ever done any work with a saw you'd also know that to get those "flat" surfaces is a pain in the butt as the tree pinches the saw. And that doesn't cover the logistics of trying to make and use a piece of metal that big. 

    If you two could learn some critical thinking that would be lovely...
    I really dont. Look at your second statement:
    "Those aren't hexagonal those are squares. Oh they are big trees?"
    You don't really what? Is that in response to "If you two could learn some critical thinking that would be lovely..." you admiting you really don't want to learn some critical thinking? I mean you didn't have to say it out loud but ok. Yes squares see red squares for reference from YOUR pictures.



    The oh they are big trees was sarcasm. I say this because at this point I don't think you got it. Physics would not allow trees to get as big as your suggesting. The wood couldn't support the weight of the limbs. Although to be fair I can't do the calculations to prove that so I prolly shouldn't state it even if I've been around enough lumber to know it's not possible to extend wood out 1,000s of feet from it's trunk without it cracking under the weight. I'm a rebel though.

    Also why did you respond to the one that doesn't include what you are responding to? I corrected it so you don't look like you are talking about make believe stuff... hmmm NM, I can't fix that part.
    SilverishGoldNova
  • @Coveny

    Yeah, his argument is stupid, but there are hexagonal formations there (although also 4, 5, and 7 sided according to the National park Service).





    It doesn't really matter because it's just as explainable through science and his arguments revolving around giant trees is just as stupid either way.
    EvidenceErfisflatSilverishGoldNova
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch