• 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

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Since the folks at creation.com refuse to debate me, I could debate what they have already written. A search for endogenous retroviruses turns up a few interesting articles.

http://creation.com/search?q=endogenous+retrovirus

Their biggest argument against ERV's seems to be that they have function. I discussed this in another thread, so I will copy that post.

One of the arguments I keep hearing is that some ERV's are functional. How does this even apply? Why can't ERV's have function while also being the product of a retroviral insertion in the genome of a shared ancestor? Why must those be mutually exclusive? Afterall, the retroviral genome already has function outside of the human genome. The long tandem repeats (LTR's) function as strong promoters that cause the host to make tons of RNA copies of the retroviral genome. The other genes in the retroviral genome also have different functions that can be co-opted through evolution.
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

If you want the truth, it isn't at creation.com. When they say that ERV's can not be used as evidence for common ancestry because they have function they are either lying to you, or they don't know anything about the genetic evidence. Take your pick.
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.

Are you asking for someone on this forum to engage in a live debate with you?

Does the Nye/Ham debate not count in your view?

Wouldn't it be more worth your time to contact local universities etc to find someone to debate rather than people on a forum who are scattered all over the world?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
This forum is proof that no-one really gets anywhere with these topics....

They don't get anywhere due to the numerous off topic posts, general apologetics injection, and very little actual science discussed because of that.
 
Upvote 0

Not_By_Chance

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 25, 2015
813
176
71
✟84,806.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Are you asking for someone on this forum to engage in a live debate with you?
Not with me. I receive a daily update from creation.com and one of the articles in there threw out a challenge for evolution-believing scientists to do a "live" debate. I just added some extra bits to the original challenge to make sure, if it took place, that it would be conducted fairly. It seems however, that there is no interest to take up their challenge, which is what they told me would be the reaction.
Does the Nye/Ham debate not count in your view?
I think that was a poorly run debate. Mr Ham seemed to be relying too much on what the Bible says, while Mr Nye engaged in what creationists are often accused of, that is, presenting some many ideas that supposedly support their case that the other side doesn't have a proper chance to respond - I think it's referred to as elephant hurling or gallop gishing (or something like that).
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Not with me. I receive a daily update from creation.com and one of the articles in there threw out a challenge for evolution-believing scientists to do a "live" debate. I just added some extra bits to the original challenge to make sure, if it took place, that it would be conducted fairly. It seems however, that there is no interest to take up their challenge, which is what they told me would be the reaction.

I think that was a poorly run debate. Mr Ham seemed to be relying too much on what the Bible says, while Mr Nye engaged in what creationists are often accused of, that is, presenting some many ideas that supposedly support their case that the other side doesn't have a proper chance to respond - I think it's referred to as elephant hurling or gallop gishing (or something like that).

I'd be happy to engage in a live debate, except that I live on a different continent. However, I'm not formally educated in science beyond what you would call 12th grade so you'd be better off with someone with a university education.

I still fail to see the real point of this. A written discussion is far far superior to live debate.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
It seems however, that there is no interest to take up their challenge, which is what they told me would be the reaction.

There's interest, just not for a live debate. It's also worth noting that this isn't how disputes are generally handled in academia - when there's a differing in science, scientists don't usually just challenge each other to live debates to settle it. It comes out in the literature, instead. Creationists want to be taken seriously as scientists, but they don't seem to want to act like scientists.

I think that was a poorly run debate. Mr Ham seemed to be relying too much on what the Bible says, while Mr Nye engaged in what creationists are often accused of, that is, presenting some many ideas that supposedly support their case that the other side doesn't have a proper chance to respond - I think it's referred to as elephant hurling or gallop gishing (or something like that).

The exact opposite happened. At one point, Ham presented a laundry list of points that supposedly supported his position - at least twenty PRATTS, if I recall correctly. He just threw them out on one of his turrns, and nothing Nye did came close to that. If anyone was gish galloping, it was Ham.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
There's interest, just not for a live debate. It's also worth noting that this isn't how disputes are generally handled in academia - when there's a differing in science, scientists don't usually just challenge each other to live debates to settle it. It comes out in the literature, instead. Creationists want to be taken seriously as scientists, but they don't seem to want to act like scientists.
Exactly, disputes in science are handled in the scientific literature, not debates. And rather than actually discuss any science, Hams approach was, "well, I have this book".

The exact opposite happened. At one point, Ham presented a laundry list of points that supposedly supported his position - at least twenty PRATTS, if I recall correctly. He just threw them out on one of his turrns, and nothing Nye did came close to that. If anyone was gish galloping, it was Ham.

Even when formal debate rules are followed, I think they do a disservice. Rather than pose a question and have a rebuttal or a rebuttal of a rebuttal, then go on to another question derails debates. What should happen is the first question should be completely debated before going on to another question, even if the debate never leaves the first question. Furthermore, both had a computer in front of them. The true outcome of a debate should be, who really knows their stuff. There should be no reference material available to either side whatsoever. But of course that would never happen, Ham can't even express even the basics correctly concerning evolution or any of the science attacked by creation science. And truly, that is what it is, an attack on science, not a disagreement or another opinion, its an attack full of misrepresentation and false claims.
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
So would you say at least "selection" is governed by specific laws or operates within specific parameters only, and that it has purpose?

That it's governed by specific laws is a gimme. That you could call this "purpose" is not; I'd need some definition for "purpose". Is it a "purpose" when the environment changes, so that certain patterns of pigmentation are favored over others? You use "purpose" a lot but I rarely, if ever, know how you're applying it or why you would apply it in that situation.

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,

Yes, let's do that with quantum physics too! See how well "the man on the street" understands that.

Newsflash: not everything can be boiled down to a 5th-grade level! In science, people who are not well-educated on a subject should not be educated by debates. They should be educated in school on the subjects where the debate is effectively over (and make no mistake, the debate is and has been over for decades when it comes to evolution).

You want a great example of why live debate is such a terrible format?


Watch some of that debate. You might notice something - Knechtly doesn't actually debate. He preaches. And here's the sad thing: it works. He comes off as more self-assured, more convincing, and more well-read than Dillahunty, despite the fact that none of his points actually hold up to any scrutiny. In fact, Dillahunty calls him on this near the end of the debate, which is probably the high point of the whole farce. But it still plays really well to the audience, because, well, Knechtly is charismatic, and his points seem to make sense, especially if you have a Christian predisposition.

In peer review, or even just a written discussion, Knechtly would have gotten shredded. Because in that format, baseless assertions can be called out, one by one. Arguments can be dissected in a way that the live, formal debate format just does not allow for. And if someone repeats a point that was rebutted without addressing the rebuttal, they can be called on it. Case in point:

but it's plain to see that you're all running scared.

You know, there's a certain irony in here...

This forum is proof that no-one really gets anywhere with these topics

Yeah, it is. See, here's the thing. We've given you numerous very good reasons why:
  • The debate is a bad idea as a whole
  • The format could hardly be more poorly chosen
  • Creation Ministries International is not worth debating with even if we were to debate this topic
  • The argument that "the man on the street could judge who is really presenting the most credible arguments" is terrible
And you've pretty much hand-waved them all away (or ignored them to reiterate the same bad point again) and acted as though we were "running scared". You're repeating points that were already rebutted. I wonder if this would have been so easy to spot in a live discussion. I also wonder why no-one really gets anywhere with these topics. Surely it couldn't be because one side just isn't listening?

Or maybe it is. I mean, in your evolution/creation on trial thread, where after one poster repeatedly claimed "mutations cannot lead to new information", I dropped something like 50 peer-reviewed papers discussing exactly those mutations on him. What happened? A retraction, maybe moving forward from there without making the same mistake that nobody versed in the field of genetics would ever make? No. No retraction was issued, no apology made; he just left the thread and didn't come back. Or in that self-same thread, where another poster made a mistake with regards to the mutation of the peppered moth, and I pointed it out, citing the primary literature and pointing out that yes, it was in fact a novel mutation. Was an admission of mistake forthcoming? I don't know, maybe it was but he just never got around to it; the thread was locked because "general apologetics".

Scientific debate does tend to move forward. Koonin, whose work is bastardized quite regularly on these forums, is probably not wrong when he says that we need a new evolutionary synthesis, and that new discoveries in horizontal gene transfer lead to some rather significant changes to the tree of life (this does not mean that we throw the whole thing out for eukaryotes!). The science has moved forward significantly in the last 50 years, thanks to honest researchers trying to learn more about the world. The core of the theory is still not wrong (just like the core of newtonian mechanics is still right, despite being supplanted by relativity, because the observations are still valid), but as our understanding increases, so does our ability to reframe and correct our knowledge.

By contrast, how has creationism done? Young earth creationism is no further along the path to legitimacy now than it was decades ago when the movement started. It has lost court case after court case, and all the while it has been completely incapable of providing anything even resembling positive evidence for creation. Instead, all it has done is try to poke holes in or deny the evidence of an old earth and evolution, and it hasn't even contributed anything of value in doing that, as the arguments presented are never particularly valid.

So I ask you - why do you think that the conversation keeps failing?

Oh, and while you're at it, when you write to CMI, maybe you should ask them why that embarrassment of an article on the Lost Squadron is still up on their web page.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Or maybe it is. I mean, in your evolution/creation on trial thread, where after one poster repeatedly claimed "mutations cannot lead to new information", I dropped something like 50 peer-reviewed papers discussing exactly those mutations on him. What happened? A retraction, maybe moving forward from there without making the same mistake that nobody versed in the field of genetics would ever make? No. No retraction was issued, no apology made; he just left the thread and didn't come back. Or in that self-same thread, where another poster made a mistake with regards to the mutation of the peppered moth, and I pointed it out, citing the primary literature and pointing out that yes, it was in fact a novel mutation. Was an admission of mistake forthcoming? I don't know, maybe it was but he just never got around to it; the thread was locked because "general apologetics".

Lately, I've seen several threads closed due to general apologetics posts, generally through only one or two persons. I commend the moderators for enforcing the no general apologetics rule, but I do wonder if that is not a technique used by posters to avoid what you have just described. Which, I kind of hate to suggest, but maybe in part with the moderators as well, as the problem is not with the general apologetics posts as it is that it is only those few people who continue to perpetuate them countless times after being warned not to, because, seriously, GA is the only argument some posters present. Pardon my honesty mods, but it would be nice to have actual discussion on scientific topics with science for a change. And the obvious trolls, what does it take to recognize them. One in particular claims specific academic credentials right under their avatar, of which it is more than obvious that they don't even know the basic principles of that area, much less possess a professional status.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟52,592.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
It can't be verified, just as any other theories about the universe cannot be verified, but I suspect that the creator deliberately put these sort of things in place to confound man's feeble attempts to explain the origin of the universe without His divine power.
Are you saying that God is deliberately deceptive? I thought Satan was the Deceiver, not God.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟52,592.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
The point you're not getting is that evolution altogether is built on the presupposition that abiogenesis occurred in the first place.
No, it isn't. Evolution is based on the fact that once life got here (however it happened) it began to change.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟52,592.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
Another technique, like in the Nye/Ham debate is come out with a huge list of things why the myth of evolution is true so that it's impossible in the time allowed to counteract it.

The only way for a sensible debate on this to occur would be to follow a simplified version of the rules used in legal cases, but in segments to keep it simpler, ie.:-
  • Both sides gather together the best evidence to support their case (maybe just a dozen items to keep it manageable).
  • The two sides then disclose their "evidence" for the other side to scrutinise and prepare refutations.
  • One side gives their first "evidence in chief," calling on any expert witnesses or slides/charts as necessary but within a manageable time scale.
  • The other side cross examines the presenter of the evidence.
  • The last two points repeat until all the evidence for the one side has been presented, after which they swap over and repeat the whole process.
  • Finally, both sides are allowed to summarise their cases, based only on the evidence they have presented.
That's not a debate, that's a court case. There are reasons that complex court cases can take months. This also illustrates exactly why a written debate would be ideal for this scenario and is also exactly the reason creationists will never agree to such a format.
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟52,592.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
Maybe in formal scientific circles, but this is a Christian forum to discuss how God's created universe best fits with the world we see around us. If science seems to be in conflict with what we read in scripture then we need to question the validity of the conclusions being drawn from the scientific literature to see if there is a better explanantion that fits in with what God has told us.
How come creationists like you never question their interpretation of Scripture?

ICR and AiG acknowledge in their Statement of Faith that "Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

How come they can never acknowledge that they might be the fallible people?
 
  • Like
Reactions: RickG
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟52,592.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
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.
True, it is never good for creationists when the audience has the opportunity to study and learn something. Tends to make the YECs lose rather quickly.

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.
They have even less of a chance to properly evaluate ideas during a live debate, which is exactly why creationists prefer that format.

But I dunno, perhaps that's the underlying purpose - to keep the public from really having a proper chance to hear all the arguments
Yes, that is an excellent explanation for why YECs demand oral debates and rarely, if ever, agree to written ones.

and just rely on the mainstream media to feed the masses whatever they want them to hear. It seems to be working.
Which is absolutely no different than what the YECs do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lasthero
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Would now be a bad time to point out that Dr. Alex Ritchie challenged Dr. Andrew Snelling to a live, public debate on the topic of flood geology, and Snelling (the YEC whose work features prominently at CMI, AiG, and others) persistently declined?

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

Because that totally happened.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟128,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Would now be a bad time to point out that Dr. Alex Ritchie challenged Dr. Andrew Snelling to a live, public debate on the topic of flood geology, and Snelling (the YEC whose work features prominently at CMI, AiG, and others) persistently declined?

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

Because that totally happened.

Yup! I would be rather difficult for Snelling to explain why he is a young earth proponent in the YEC literature, but has no problem with an old earth at the same time in the scientific peer review literature. It is a shame what creation science has become.
 
Upvote 0

ranunculus

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2008
919
606
✟303,434.00
Country
Luxembourg
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
If you want the truth, it isn't at creation.com.
I like how they keep a list of really really dumb arguments creationists shouldn't use.
http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
There is amazing modern scientific insight in the Bible.”
We should interpret the Bible as the author originally intended, and as the intended readership would have understood it. Therefore we should be cautious in reading modern science into passages where the readers would not have seen it. This applies especially to poetic books like Job and Psalms. For example, Job’s readers would not have understood Job 38:31 to be teaching anything about gravitational potential energy of Orion and Pleiades. Rather, the original readers would have seen it as a poetic illustration of God’s might, i.e. that God, unlike Job, could create the Pleiades in a tightly-knit cluster which is what it looks like; while God created Orion as a well spread out constellation, again something well beyond Job’s ability. Similarly, Job 38:14 is not advanced scientific insight into the Earth’s rotation, because the earth is not being compared to the turning seal but to the clay turning from one shape into another under the seal.

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ich-one-is-right.7799439/page-2#post-68331858
 
Upvote 0