Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
I couldn't believe all the nonsense and accusations that came from Ramsey's last vitriolic post. I promised I would not post another article to the debate, and even said that I wouldn't correct him on the debate's discussion forum, since it was such an awkward one. But I did tell him that I would correct whatever falsehoods he wrote in other forums. And this one is the most appropriate for that.
Originally Posted by Mark Ramsey
Article Two was to be my last article. The reasons for my withdrawing were presented previously and are summarized here:
I'm sure everyone who read the debate already has their own ideas as to why Ramsey quit, and it has nothing to do with time.
L. Aron Nelson (AKA Aron-Ra) would not stay on topic, even after two articles and my, and others, pointing this out to him.
One person did point out something I said that he believed was off-topic, and I accepted that. But Mark Ramsey is the one who kept trying to change the topic. Rather than debate how evolution should be taught in school, he insisted on arguing materialism vs theism, something which he had previously agreed not to discuss. Yet he accuses me of bringing religion into the debate.
The minimal benefit to any readers as evidenced marginally by few real comments in the forum, and none of those being positive on the debate.
I would like to see a poll as to who's fault that was.
My opponent is not a suitable public spokesman. After my second article, he revealed that he was a high school drop-out who, in his own mind, was more informed on these issues than those with degrees.
I stated my educational background several times, long before this discussion began. It was in my initial proposal, (which he insisted be taken down) and it was in my bio and even in the newspaper article he was interviewed in, and that started all of this. Ramsey read all three of these weeks before he ever entered this debate. So he has no excuse for not realizing who I was until the second round.
And having degrees in dentistry, physics, education or chemistry doesn’t make one knowledgeable of fossils or the evolutionary processes. However, Mark Ramsey and his chosen moderator, Mark Cadwallader, (both engineers) did pretend to know more about evolution than the other participating moderators, a geophysicist, a geneticist, and a famous paleontologist with degrees from Harvard and Yale. All of whom agreed with my definitions and explanations of evolution where no reputable scientist agrees with Ramsey or Cadwallader on anything. Ramsey’s assertion of my “pretending to know more than people with degrees” is a case of the pot calling the silverware black.
Overall, the effort was not worth the time. IMO, it wasted the time of most involved.
I resigned from the debate, not wanting to throw the time equivalent of ‘good money after bad’.
Before this debate ever began, Ramsey’s premature withdrawl, and time issue he cites as his excuse, were both predicted by Stephen Shafersman who is the president of the Texas Citizens for Science, and is already familiar with Mark Ramsey and his tactics.
It seems apparent that Nelson still has not obtained access nor read many (if any) of the current Texas textbooks, the topic of the debate, only confirming reference to a 1991 biology book (in the forum, not in his articles).
I mentioned the 1991 text in addition to two of the current ones, (which I already own) when Cadwallader and I debated the definition of evolution. Also, although I already had current Texas science text books, there was never any requirement of me to have them. Ramsey's still trying to change the topic. This was a debate about how we should teach evolution in public schools, not about what the current books already said. There would be no point in debating that.
There were several online posts that said some variation of “I declared victory and left”. The se posts are false. Rather, I resigned without claiming either victory or defeat. That was entirely the conclusion of the posters, perhaps from Nelson’s dismal second article.
My “dismal” second article still managed to address and disprove each of my opponent's earlier errors while staying within the imposed word limit. None of which was he able to do in any of his posts.
However, just as they did not respect the topic or guidelines of the debate, they did not respect my resignation, posting another article by Nelson.
My article had already been submitted the night before he notified the mediator that he was quitting. But even if I had not already submitted that post, his quitting the debate prematurely in no way implies that I shouldn’t post the reply that was expected of me at that time.
I agreed after that to write this final article of the formal debate (making three complete rounds). This is not necessarily the end of discussions on the public forum, as some, notably Nelson, have falsely claimed that I demanded. In fact, I specifically included continuing public forum comments.
I never demanded any such thing. I promised Ramsey that I would not perpetuate this debate in the moderator’s debate forum. I explained this to Ramsey more than once, but he still wants to say that I “falsely claimed” something. I guess he's just not happy if he can't accuse me of something I'm not guilty of, but which he seems to be.
Before my response, a few introductory comments on extraneous issues will be addressed briefly below.
Religion:
Brazenly (by his own admission he is arrogant),
At least I don't copywright all my own posts.
he launches into religion once again, as he has previously.
Not.
In fact, except for Borlaug, religion is the only consistent topic Nelson addresses.
I consistently disproved each one of Ramsey's falsehoods.
He brought it up, at least implicitly, in the first sentence of his (and the debate’s) first article linking me to the Greater Houston Creation Association, something that has nothing to do with our debate topic whatsoever, and yet has the audacity to attribute the subject of religion to my writing.
Introducing my opponant as who he is does not itself make religion an issue. Although Ramsey believes it does. That's why he refused to answer when the school board asked him if he belonged to any organizations known to be biased on this particular topic. Ramsey also revealed my internet post name when he introduced me. Was he trying to do the same thing he’s now accusing me of?
He continued in his second article.
Only by repeating that religion should not be the issue he insisted it should be.
In his third article, he directs the reader offsite to a document about religious beliefs that he wrote, approximately equal in length to his article three itself!
Incorrect. There were only a few words of my own in that article. I’m not a liar, and will defend myself when accused of that. I was answering one of Ramsey’s many off-topic, and erroneous, comments appropriately off-site. And in that, I explained that the necessary data was unavailable to him or anyone reading the article without a login to Gallup.com. So I apologized in advance, and explained why I had to copy all the relevant parts of several articles which proved that most Christians really are evolutionists just as I said.
He even charges (inaccurately) that I am an evangelist. Go figure. I will not address religion below.
Encarta defines an evangelist as “a Christian who tries to persuade other people to become Christian, especially at public gatherings or in broadcasts.”
Merriam Webster defines it as “a person who evangelizes : a Protestant minister or layman who preaches at special services”.
Wordsmyth defines it as “a person who works to gain converts to an evangelical church”.
And Bartleby defines it as “one who practices evangelism.”
All of which apply to Ramsey. Evangelism is a subset of Christianity which believes that the Bible is 100% accurate, flawless in any way, and the direct word-of-God. That is Ramsey’s position according to the doctrinal statement of his affiliation. I called Ramsey an evangelist because that’s exactly what he is. Look it up.
Off topic again:
Nelson: ‘And baring all this in mind, my next question for Mr. Ramsey to ignore is, what exactly did he learn which caused him to reject evolution?’[sic]
If he is serious, I will consider discussing this with him privately some other time.
I was serious, but it would be inappropriate to address that in private because it was definitely on-topic. In the debate, Ramsey promoted teaching “scientific weaknesses of evolution” and he said in his bio that he was a former evolutionist himself until he discovered one of those weaknesses. But all of the ones he endorsed were either misrepresented or flat-out false, and it was obvious that he never understood evolution to begin with. So I asked a question that was definitely on-topic, but that apparently has an off-topic answer, and is evidently not the one implied in his bio.
Curious Definition:
Nelson: ‘Evidence’ is defined as a set of facts which are explained by, and supportive of, -one particular scenario over any other.[sic]
No wonder he misunderstands so much. Evidence is the data – the truth if you will. What you do with it – the scenario in his definition above – is the derivative or interpretation of that data or evidence. The smoking gun and the dead body with a hole in it are the evidence. Evidence is self standing. Its status is not dependent on a particular scenario or even any scenario.
Ramsey has confused the definition of “evidence” with the definition of “fact”.
A scenario in Aron’s mind might be that the gun went off and fired randomly by itself, killing the person, in spite of the gun owner’s fingerprints being on the handle and trigger and cartridge casings. By Aron’s definition of evidence, the fingerprints don’t count and would be dismissed!
Ramsey misunderstands so much that I wonder if it isn’t deliberate. Sometimes it seems it must be. But he really needs to learn the meanings of words before he uses them.
Evidence: “something that furnishes proof”
--Merriam Webster
“information or signs indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.”
--Oxford English Dictionary
“the basis for belief; that which constitutes proof of something.”
--Wordsmyth
“A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:”
--Dictionary.com
My definition matches all the dictionaries, where none of them agree with his definition.
Conversely, the most likely scenario might be defined as the one that has the preponderance of evidence on its side.
Or one could phrase it thus:
“Any observable event which tends to prove or disprove a proposition.”
--Wikipedia
As opposed to a fact:
"A piece of information presented as having objective reality"
--Merriam Webster
"A fact may tentatively support or refute a model of how the universe works. Facts do not prove a model is correct."
--Wikipedia
Or one could say that “evidence” is defined as a set of facts which are explained by, and supportive of, -one particular scenario over any other. That’s about the same thought as in all the dictionaries. No wonder Ramsey misunderstands so much.
What strengths? Clearly, textbooks already teach strengths of evolution. While we do not agree with them all,
Hold it right there. Ramsey doesn't agree with any of them, not one single one, and he never did. In fact everything he has written so far has been an attempt to refute or dispute every aspect of it. Don't let him fool you.
we do not propose censoring any of them, provided they are not disproved (such as Haeckels embryo drawings, peppered moths, etc.). Continue to teach all of the legitimate strengths that you wish. Just don’t confuse science fiction “Just So” stories with real, substantiated science.
I have repeatedly challenged Ramsey to explain what he thought the legitimate strengths of evolution are, and what parts of it he thought were acceptable to teach, since he has apparently rejected every part of that whole body of knowledge. He obligately refused to answer. And this is as much because he doesn't know anything about it as it is because he only advocates teaching weaknesses exclusively, despite all his huffing and puffing to the contrary. I wouldn't buy a used car from this man. I certainly wouldn't let him decide how to educate our children!
Miscellany: Undoubtedly there are some of his less important arguments that space does not permit answering. Rather, I choose to use my allotted bandwidth addressing more important issues, especially those dealing with Texas curriculum.
But what he actually did was to post an additional 700+ words in his "introduction", and multiple paragraphs of his "last paragraph", just so he could insult me some more, as if he hadn't made enough personal attacks in his 1st two posts.
__________________ "To see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." --Benjamin Franklin "Faith means not wanting to know what is true." --Frederich Nietzche` "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --Mark Twain "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding," --Reverend Martin Luther
Ramsey displays the behavior paradigmatic of creationists everywhere.
Ramsey admits he is no expert in evolution, much less biology. But he makes very bold assertions which run contrary to a majority of legitimate experts in that field.
For example, in matters of taxonomy (I believe he posted here the other night), he asserted that taxonomy is simply a tool, and can't possibly be evidence for evolution. But how would he know either way, without any real background in the subject?
So instead of asking biologists "how is taxonomy evidence for evolution," he instead asserts the contrary, that it's not. He and Cadwallader admit to not understanding a good percentage of the terminology related to biology (including taxonomic terms), but instead of asking what those terms mean and how they're meaningful, he asserts that they're arbitrary.
And this is literally everywhere in both the real world and internet. Creationists don't ask questions of experts - they just assert the experts are self-evidently wrong and silly.
Which begs the question - what about the subject of evolution creates this sort of behavior? Why don't you see Ramsey speaking up about other areas of science he probably disagrees with (say, astrophysics)?
The answer is fairly simple - objections to evolution are rarely, if ever (I'd go so far to say never) based on exclusively scientific reasons. Ramsey is pursuing an obviously religious agenda, but worse than that, masks it in the name of betterment of children, education standards, and science as a whole. But he ignores science when directed his way (see all the examples of "increases in information," of which I listed no less than half a dozen peer reviewed ones, that he ignored as being from "atheistic scientists"), so he's obviously not particularly interested in science. And he doesn't feel the need to correct the "weaknesses" of other areas of science in the textbook he undoubtedly considers just as wrong, so it's fairly obvious he's not doing it for any children's benefit.
Ramsey is pursuing a religious agenda for the sake of that agenda, and that's it. He shares this pursuit with countless creationists who can't even be honest about WHY they're pursuing it - faith in a particular worldview at the exclusion of all others. Instead of being up front, they mask it in scientific terminology and create whole fake, "scientific" organizations from which they launch their public assault. They appeal to laypeople of likemind while entirely ignoring scientific academia, dismissing them as out of touch with reality.
And this is why creationism isn't just nuts - it's scary, and literally dangerous. Ramsey, Cadwallader, and people like him really do scare me, and the effect they have on policy and politics is truly troubling.
Ramsey, Cadwallader, and people like him really do scare me, and the effect they have on policy and politics is truly troubling.
Not to mention religion...
Peace,
Nick
__________________
ॐ । असतो मा सद्गमय । तमसो मा ज्योतिर्गमय । मृत्योर्मामृतं गमय ।।
And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority... sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah, the prophet. Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go near and join yourself to this chariot." And so Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you indeed understand what you are reading?" And he said, "How can I, unless some man should guide me?"
Stats from the site to prove whether it was worth anyone's time or not
Note the number of unique visitors for a site that started at the end of April and is 4 days into July:
Total unique vistors: 1521
No. of visits 2802
Pages14996
Hits 48780 I take responsibilty for not scouting a better forum host. I spent hours making sure Aron's and Ramsey's posts were perfectly formatted on the website. I helped secure moderators. Aron made sure he was ready to start.
I felt it was worth my time to air this issue in front of Texas decision makers, perhaps some sort of understanding would result. It really stung to read that it was not worth Ramsey's time after as much as I went through to give him and Nelson a platform to speak. Perhaps if Ramsey had spent as much time organizing the debate instead of stepping in and pooh poohing it despite the number of people all over the world that were reading it, he would have felt that it was worth his precious time.
__________________ "Consider the lilies is the only commandment I ever obeyed." -- Emily Dickinson
In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The universe is much bigger than out prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." _-Carl Sagan
Last edited by consideringlily; 5th July 2005 at 12:04 PM.
Are these rebuttals being linked to from the debate forum, as I think that letting the peopel following the debate know about this would be a good plan!
__________________
The usual Kent Hovind based signature has been suspended for a good cause.
Search for cfpaddler in google to see how a friend of mine wants to paddle round the UK to raise funds for the Cystic Fibrosis Trust. Any support, spiritual or otherwise, would be greatly appreciated by him.
__________________ "To see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." --Benjamin Franklin "Faith means not wanting to know what is true." --Frederich Nietzche` "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --Mark Twain "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding," --Reverend Martin Luther
Aron, please allow these links to be posted to the debate forum.
I was just about to do it myself, but didnt want to if there was some reason you didnt want that done.
Ed
If you want to post them there, I can't stop you. I only said *I* wouldn't post them there.
But I'm sure no one is looking at that forum anymore.
__________________ "To see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." --Benjamin Franklin "Faith means not wanting to know what is true." --Frederich Nietzche` "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --Mark Twain "Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding," --Reverend Martin Luther
Linear Mode
