Creation/Evolution Non-Participant Commentary & InvitationsComment on existent debates, invite or challenge members to debates, and plan your debates here!
This is a general debate invitation on the subject of Human and Chimpanzee ancestry. Points of interest could include:
ERVs
Hominid fossils
DNA comparisons
Comparative anatomy
YEC, ID and TOE arguments
Just throwing out a line to see if I get a bite.
__________________
“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)
Hopefully someone is paying attention on this thread. I'm going to repost what I wrote on the other thread as it still applies (I am going to paraphrase as the above is not a complete sentence):
[Do] 'Human and Chimpanzee' [share a] 'Common Ancestry' [?]
The answer is unequivocally YES.
Please allow me to explain, trust me it will be brief. Humans are multicellular, vertebrate, mammalian, tetrapods with bilateral symmetry. Unless there is any doubt about that then humans, chimps, lemurs, cats, dogs, sharks, birds, dinosaurs, bats, and anything else with two eyes a nose a mouth and a spinal cord all share a common ancestor.
The question should read when not if.
But that would move the debate squarely into the realm of science.
The fact of decent with modification through natural selection does not require belief. Ask anyone with MRSA (Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus) and they (or at least their doctor) will tell you that natural selection is trying to kill them. (go look it up) If anyone thinks that they can prove that this is not the case, please share it with me and I might cut you into the money I get from Sweden when I share it with the rest of the world.
The great Piltdown hoax was a hoot, my opponent couldn't even finish the debate. He ran out of material so fast he never managed a single substantive argument.
This one was truly sad, I had no idea just how disoriented Theistic Evolutionists were with regards to Christian Theology until I destroyed this one's arguments. I shamed him into the debate and I'm almost sorry I did, I would like to think that TE is more then atheism in sheep's clothing.
You will not find these kind of formal debates between SLP and creationists because he argues using fallacious ad hominem attacks from his ivory tower.
I'm sure you are a brilliant guy professor, it's a shame you don't have the courage of your convictions. If you did you would rush to put my oft repeated arguments down once and for all. There is a reason why I prefer one on one formal debates, it's because my opponent can't hide behind his minions who attain credibility through insults, flames and spam tactics. That is also the reason that actual scientists prefer to let the minions do the actual debating.
The invitation stands and I would love to finally corner you on the issues you manage to bury under the avalanche of fallacious debate tactics evolutionists delight in. Not one of the CARM debaters would accept a formal debate but why should they, you can't be held accountable if you never really take a stand on real world issues.
__________________
“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)
Last edited by mark kennedy; 12th June 2009 at 10:10 AM.
1. As part of the debate, are you willing to prove with scientific rigor that the Christian God exists?
2. If not agreeing to #1, are you able to come up with a more plausible naturalistic explanation for human origins?
Last edited by bluegene; 1st June 2009 at 05:02 PM.
Reason: clarifications
1. As part of the debate, are you willing to prove with scientific rigor that the Christian God exists?
I can offer some arguments for that but what I'm most interested in is human origins from a scientific viewpoint. What you are suggesting is philosophical and while it interests me I don't think that the issue of God's existance is a primary issue.
2. If not agreeing to #1, are you able to come up with a more plausible naturalistic explanation for human origins?
I can tell you that the existance of God is never in question from the point of view I'm arguing from. Many of the same arguments I use with secular scientists work equally well when debating Theistic Evolutionists.
I'm intriqued by your approach and as I recall arguments for God's existance has always been a part of classic Christian Apologetics. It is the naturalistic assumptions of TOE I find most objectionable about it.
We can talk about this approach but you'll have to clarify the questions you are posing.
“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)
Last edited by mark kennedy; 1st June 2009 at 10:21 PM.
The great Piltdown hoax was a hoot, my opponent couldn't even finish the debate. He ran out of material so fast he never managed a single substantive argument.
Liar. And you've been corrected on this a number of times. Repeating arguments shown to be false is your MO however, so not surprising.
__________________ (The Library of Alexandria) questioned the permanence of the stars, but did not question the justice of slavery - Carl Sagan in Cosmos
40,000 men and women everyday, re-define happiness
Join Date: 11th August 2006
Posts: 4,596
Blessings: 24,517
Reps: 49,190,901,784,082 (power: 0)
I'd be happy to discuss this with you Mark. If its a discussion you are interested in... if you are only interested in the automatic gainsaying of anything I have to say, I'd rather save both our time.
Liar. And you've been corrected on this a number of times. Repeating arguments shown to be false is your MO however, so not surprising.
You quit when you ran out of arguments and started making these bizarre equivocations with the lunar landing being thought a hoax. Piltdown should be cited by Creationists and my argument was simply that the Taung Child is a similar hoax. When you were confronted with it you quit the debate unconditionally and the truth of what I say is in the debate thread.
__________________
“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)
I'd be happy to discuss this with you Mark. If its a discussion you are interested in... if you are only interested in the automatic gainsaying of anything I have to say, I'd rather save both our time.
So, what do you say?
No I'm seriously interested in what you have to say. I would be interested in what you have to say about my previous debates, the one proposed and Chimpanzee/human ancestry if you care to pursue the topic.
I'm fishing for a formal debate but I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject. This is a casual discussion forum, speak your mind LightHorseman.
BTW, what is the deal with '40,000' men and woman redefining happiness? I'm something of a philosophy buff and the question I like to prime philosophy discussions is 'What is the happy life'. Based on that answer the next question is, 'how then should people live'?
At any rate, as long as you state your views and I feel your at least considering a formal debate I'll be interested in what you have to say.
Kind regards,
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)
Linear Mode
