-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
A challenge has been issued
- Thread starter Not_By_Chance
- Start date
I'm not replying specifically to this post, but I wanted to let you know that I've had a response to your challenge to debate the creation scientists. Here is the reply:-
"That’s an interesting ‘challenge’. However, this person says: I would be happy to debate any creationist in an open written debate on genetics with limited but pragmatic rules (e.g. must use references that are accessible online).
With respect, all our staff scientists, myself included, have done exactly this on many occasions. An example of just one such debate (of the kind he mentions) is here:
http://creation.com/australian-skeptics-vs-cmi-australia
See also: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/skeptics_vs_creationists.pdf
However, a written debate, though ‘open’, is not seen by everyone. Also, written ‘debates’ are really just a case of people arguing back and forth after consulting websites or articles that are deemed to support their side of the argument. The kind of debate that CMI sometimes mentions in our literature—in relation to our charge that evolutionists generally refuse to debate informed creationists—is a public live debate between two well-informed and suitably qualified people on both sides of the argument. It is such debates that most/all evolutionists run scared of doing, usually under the ridiculous excuse that “I don’t debate creationists because I don’t want to give them the oxygen of publicity”! This is typical of the excuse of the infamous Richard Dawkins for instance.
If your correspondent is a qualified geneticist and would be willing to debate a creationist geneticist, let me know and I’ll see if this is a possibility"
Your move (and yes, I agree with the creationists that a "live" debate along the lines I suggested earlier would be much better). Even better still would be if it were shown in front of a studio audience, with a poll taken before and after the debate of a few key questions such as:-
- How many of you think that evolution best explains the way life as we know it came to be?
- How many think that creation by God is a better explanation?
- How many seriously doubt that the universe is really billions of years old?
- How many think that the age suggested by the Bible, i.e., just a few thousand years, could be an alternative possibility?
- How many think that the Big Bang, without any need for a deity is a good explanation for the beginning of the universe?
- How many think that God made the universe by his supernatural powers instead?
- How many, having watched the debate, have changed from believing that only non-supernatural forces account for all reality?
- Conversely, how many who originally thought that God was a good explanation for what we see around us have now changed their mind and feel that what we know from science is adequate to explain everything?
Upvote
0
The Cadet
SO COOL
- Apr 29, 2010
- 6,290
- 4,743
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Mutations are random. The traits they produce are random. The selection of those traits within a population is not. Evolution is most certainly not random in any meaningful sense.
Upvote
0
The Cadet
SO COOL
- Apr 29, 2010
- 6,290
- 4,743
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Simple solution: restrict citations to peer-reviewed papers published in the primary literature.
...I don't think the creationists would be on board with this one...
Seriously though, that's kind of the beauty of a written debate over a live debate. A live debate necessarily involves restricting the inflow of knowledge. When you enter a live debate, the amount of knowledge you have on the subject at the start is not going to increase significantly, and if you get blindsided by a point (say, for example, they bring up the "London Artifact" and you didn't know about it), there's no fact-checking mechanism available. In a written debate, every point can be meticulously fact-checked before a response is given. This is a good thing. Your knowledge inflow is not limited. If someone brings up some element you've never heard of, you can spend a little time and learn something about it.
Just to give an example: in a live debate between a biologist and a creationist, if CMI's representative brought up, just to pick one random article out from their menagerie, The Lost Squadron, and claimed that it showed that ice core data was unreliable, that biologist might not know anything about it and be blindsided. Whereas in a written debate, the biologist has the time to spend a little time educating themself about ice core data, and realize that this point is a complete, unadulterated lie. This is the kind of information inflow that is impossible in a live debate. And to put it bluntly, this sort of lack of understanding is a vastly disproportionate advantage to the creationist side, whose evidence simply does not hold up to any sort of scientific scrutiny. This is why you don't see their work in peer review at all!
Well what's the point? As stated numerous times, it's a debate that needs to be had in the scientific literature (like all scientific debates!), and the terrain gives creationists a massive advantage on just about every front, in a way which is completely unreasonable. What's more, Dawkins is right - there's no reason for real scientists to debate with these people. Most scientists have better things to do with their time, and all it does is offer a bogus pseudoscience an air of respectability it has absolutely no business laying claim to.
Why? In what possible way does a live debate serve the discovery of the truth better than a written debate?
Upvote
0
Mutations are random. Selection is not. Natural selection is what makes evolution a non-random process.
As an analogy, the pattern of raindrops may be random, but water will always flow downhill. Evolution is guided by selection in the same way that water is guided by gravity.
Upvote
0
That's why there is something called "disclosure" in legal cases and is what I previously suggested be used prior to a "live" debate. This reduces the chances of surprise evidence suddenly being introduced without the other side having had time to prepare for it. So, provided such a debate were organised and properly run along those lines, there would be no valid reason to reject having such a debate. I think the creation scientists would probably agree to such constraints, and if so, the challenge for a "live" debate would remain open. So Loudmouth, would you willing to engage in a "live" debate with them or not? If not, it will be obvious to most that despite all the claims that the evidence for evolution is so convincing that it can effectively be regarded as being proven (and many go further to say that "evolution is a fact"), the reality is that those peddling this idea don't have the confidence in it to have it examined by anyone not already committed to the idea of naturalism.
Upvote
0
The Cadet
SO COOL
- Apr 29, 2010
- 6,290
- 4,743
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Well, other than that scientific debate happens in peer review where both sides are cross-examined by a multitude of experts, that a live format favors showmanship in a way that favors pastors over "nerds" any day of the week, and that the debate has been over for decades already and is basically kept alive by dishonest shysters... Yeah, I see no reason why not to do this.
Again, it really comes down to two issues: scientific debate does not happen in the public arena, and creationists already lost the debate decades ago. Young earth creationists lost the debate centuries ago. This is not to say that creationists are going to win; the last case we have of this had the creationist lose, badly, but there's no good reason to accept the challenge.
(Ham kinda got trounced, even though a couple of his points that were demonstrably wrong slipped through - the kind of thing that would quickly and easily be dealt with in a written debate or peer review.)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
So would you say at least "selection" is governed by specific laws or operates within specific parameters only, and that it has purpose?
If so, then in your opinion, could you provide insight into the cause or source of these laws/parameters and purpose? And does not purposefulness imply intent? Does not "purpose" imply a predermined goal?
Upvote
0
It doesn't. A written debate would much better serve the public - points could be more thoroughly explained, references could be included that anyone could look up, links could be given to sources, et cetera. There's nothing a live debate could offer that a written debate couldn't do just as well, if not better...except theatre. Which, I suspect, whether he admits it or not, is what NBC actually cares about.
Upvote
0
Actually, it's nothing of the kind. I just wanted the truth to come out so that ordinary folk could judge who is really presenting the most credible arguments, but it's plain to see that you're all running scared. I'll just have to report back to the scientists at creation.com that what they told me has been well and truly confirmed by the response received on this forum to their challenge.
Upvote
0
Actually, I won't need to do that because I provided them with a link to this thread anyway, so they'll be able to read it for themselves.
Upvote
0
Which can be done much better in a written debate, where 'ordinary folk' can examine the argument in depth and see how credible the sides are at their leisure. Again, the only advantage a live debate has is theatre. Aside from the presentation, there's nothing a live debate can present that a written one can't do infinitely better.
A debate is a debate. No one is 'running scared' from your challenge, merely disagreeing about the best format. If your position is so strong, this shouldn't be a problem.
I imagine they'll love the opportunity to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves that people are actually afraid to debate them, which is what I suspect the goal of this thread was in the first place.
Upvote
0
I am not the one who turned down a written debate offer.
There is absolutely no credible reason why a scientific debate can only be an oral debate. The only reason someone would insist on an oral debate is to hide the truth with the Gish Gallop.
Would those be the same scientists who turned down my debate offer?
Upvote
0
My offer still stands. I would gladly have a written debate on the subject of genetics with anyone at creation.com. If they are afraid that I will just copy off of other websites, I would be glad to lay down some ground rules. First, references can only come from primary peer reviewed papers. Second, the posts written by the debater need to demonstrate an understanding of the material in the peer reviewed paper.
Of course, what they are really worried about is allowing someone time to check their references. What they are relying on is throwing out a bunch of bovine excrement and hoping that some of it slips through without being called out.
Upvote
0
That's the impression you give off.
You seem far less concerned about a reasoned, thoughtful debate and more interested in a show. Loudmouth's offer of a written debate is quite reasonable and fair.
Upvote
0
I've already stated my reason for why I felt the "live" debate idea would be better + the public would have a chance to listen to the arguments first hand, rather than being expected to wade through masses of technical literature and to try to evaluate arguments and counter arguments. This forum is proof that no-one really gets anywhere with these topics and the public who don't even visit such forums (the majority I would suspect) have even less chance to properly evaluate the ideas. But I dunno, perhaps that's the underlying purpose - to keep the public from really having a proper chance to hear all the arguments and just rely on the mainstream media to feed the masses whatever they want them to hear. It seems to be working.
Upvote
0
I hate to tell you this, but some things in life are kind of complex, and can't be properly dumbed down to a fifth grade level. Sometimes, people have to do some reading and spend some time properly going over an argument. A written debate allows that. A live one doesn't. In a live debate, what matters most is how convincing you sound to an audience, not the actual content of your argument. It boils down to who's the better speaker - a good enough debater can make anything sound like it has merit, even when it really does. A written debate removes that factor - it all comes down to who has the most facts on their side, who has the best data.
It's much easier to properly evaluate an idea when you actually have time to sit down and go over it.
Most of the public - in America at least - doesn't accept evolutionary theory, so I don't know what you're complaining about. Creationists are very good with PR. They have theme parks, they have flashy movies. People like Ray Comfort and Ken Ham are all over social media preaching their messages.
Upvote
0
I thought you wanted the truth? It seems that all you want is entertainment.
That's what happens when one side of the debate refuses to address the evidence.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
