Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
I am actually kind of shocked. I thought I would have too many people volenteering.
Maybe they don't like the one on one thing. If that's true, its a pretty lame reason.
We agree on everything except the topic of debate, ID is not Creationism. Some of the arguments follow the same lines but they are distinctly different. Don't be surprised if evolutionists won't take you up on the offer, many of them lack real world conviction. They like attacking in groups and don't respond well to invitations to personal dialog.
I have read a lot on the subject but bear in mind, what you are dealing with is a collective attitude. ID can be very impressive with it's scientific acumen, there is no two ways about this. Just don't confuse it with Creationism because it is distinctly different.
I wish you well and my invitation to debate it on that level still stands.
Grace and peace,
Mark
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
ID can be very impressive with it's scientific acumen, there is no two ways about this. Just don't confuse it with Creationism because it is distinctly different.
Someone had better tell the makers of the intelligent, provocative, professional docudrama Expelled. Stein has no bones about equating ID with creationism.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
He appeals to God in the trailer and made no attempt to correct O'Reilly when he equated ID with creationism several weeks ago. Even the DI is embarassed by Mathis and Stein's goof-ups.
__________________ We can allow satellites, planets, suns, universe, nay whole systems of universes, to be governed by laws, but the smallest insect, we wish to be created at once by special act.
Someone had better tell the makers of the intelligent, provocative, professional docudrama Expelled. Stein has no bones about equating ID with creationism.
From what I read, he made a distinction.
__________________ "If you are really a product of a materialistic universe, how is it that you don't feel at home there?" C.S. Lewis
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." C.S. Lewis
"You can't get a cup of tea big enough or a book long enough to suit me." C. S. Lewis
We agree on everything except the topic of debate, ID is not Creationism.
And yet it is presented as creationism by a vast majority of it's proponents. ID also runs into the problem of infinite regress. It can't be designers all the way down. At some point in the 13.7 billion year history of the universe the first designer has to come about through some type of abiogenesis and evolution.
Could some type of limited ID be couched in terms that do not rely on supernatural claims? Sure, but then ID isn't that compelling nor can it explain why the first designers can come about naturally but everything else must be designed.
If someone can provide a compelling ID theory I would have no problem with a personal dialog, as mark kennedy already knows. However, if it is going to be a discussion of who started the modern ID movement then it is not a discussion worth having.
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
And yet it is presented as creationism by a vast majority of it's proponents. ID also runs into the problem of infinite regress. It can't be designers all the way down. At some point in the 13.7 billion year history of the universe the first designer has to come about through some type of abiogenesis and evolution.
Could some type of limited ID be couched in terms that do not rely on supernatural claims? Sure, but then ID isn't that compelling nor can it explain why the first designers can come about naturally but everything else must be designed.
If someone can provide a compelling ID theory I would have no problem with a personal dialog, as mark kennedy already knows. However, if it is going to be a discussion of who started the modern ID movement then it is not a discussion worth having.
It could/could not be designers all the way down just as easily as it could/could not be anything else. That is just silly. I do not see why Biological ID has to be or prove an infinite regress of teleological causes any more than Biological Evolution has to be or prove an infinite regress of ateleological ones.
The term "supernatural" is useless, let's throw it out of the discussion, it seems to me to be only a loaded word use by Anti-IDists as similarly as conservatives use the term "politically correct" on liberal ideologies that they disagree with.
I am genuinely starting to suspect that people are scared of one on one discussion away from the mob that backs them up. If ID really is so clearly creationism, and unscientific I would think there would be more people willing to step up and take the challenge. I really didn't expect so many people who inhabit the forum to be cowed so easily.
__________________ "If you are really a product of a materialistic universe, how is it that you don't feel at home there?" C.S. Lewis
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." C.S. Lewis
"You can't get a cup of tea big enough or a book long enough to suit me." C. S. Lewis
He appeals to God in the trailer and made no attempt to correct O'Reilly when he equated ID with creationism several weeks ago. Even the DI is embarassed by Mathis and Stein's goof-ups.
So ID is creationism because Ben Stein goofs up?
That's not a very convincing argument.
Care to take me up on my debate offer though?
__________________ "If you are really a product of a materialistic universe, how is it that you don't feel at home there?" C.S. Lewis
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." C.S. Lewis
"You can't get a cup of tea big enough or a book long enough to suit me." C. S. Lewis
I am genuinely starting to suspect that people are scared of one on one discussion away from the mob that backs them up. If ID really is so clearly creationism, and unscientific I would think there would be more people willing to step up and take the challenge. I really didn't expect so many people who inhabit the forum to be cowed so easily.
From having just read the thread it appears to me to have more to do with your utter inability to define exactly what it is you wish to debate.
Every time someone tries to pin you down you say that that isn't what you wish to debate.
It would be useful if, instead of casting aspersions on those you regard as your opponents, you actually laid down in plain terms what it is that is to be debated.
__________________ A scientist, it's official
" The result, therefore, of this physical enquiry is that we find no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" James Hutton, from his 1788 paper to the Royal Society of Edinburgh on the principles of geology
Linear Mode
