A Simple Challenge for an Honest Debate

[JohnR7]

<David Attenborough voice>
Notice how the JohnR7 quickly retreats in the face of superior evidence.

That is your evidence? HA, you guys do not even get out of the starting gate.

 

[JohnR7]

...You can't answer the question can you.

Why don't you try to come up with a question first, then we will see if we can answer it.

 

[JohnR7]

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

You do know my opinion of Hawking don't you? That his thinking is as twisted as he body is.
I really do not mean that to be disrespectful or an insult, but people are going to need to learn to see things the way they are.

 

[JohnR7]

"A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."
--Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

A "good" theory is something that lines up with the truth as we find it in the word of God.
In order for something to be "good" it has to go beyond a superficial appearance. It has to actually be benificial.

 

[Jet Black]

According to evolutionary theory the species should change and become a part of the new system. But that is not what happens. Look at the wild rabbit population in australia that is out of control.

lol, John in "not understanding evolution" non-shocker.

 

[Jet Black]

The numskull.

John, between which skulls should we find the missing link?

come on now, I want to know where the missing link should be.

 

[Jet Black]

A "good" theory is something that lines up with the truth as we find it in the word of God.

that is however just a theory of man. all theories of man are lies, therefore what you just said is a lie.

 

[Jet Black]

That is your evidence? HA, you guys do not even get out of the starting gate.

Ha! that was your response? you didn't answer the question though did you? are you incapable of answering it like all the other creationists are?

 

[Jet Black]

You do know my opinion of Hawking don't you? That his thinking is as twisted as he body is.

so what do you base this opinion on? your man made theory that everything the Bible says is 100% true?

 

[lucaspa]

Here's a question for you. Since a theory is supposed to be a response to evidence, does Creation Science deserve to be called a theory? What evidence from the field is Creation Science a response to? It looks much more like Creationism/Creation Science is simply a fixed idea.

Yes, creation science is a theory. It's a falsified theory. But falsifying a theory does not remove its status as theory. It merely removes it from the short list of currently valid theories to the very long list of falsified theories:

"There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years; rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Bumet, William Whiston, and others). Moreover, variants of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteenth-century scientists-William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about the catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation. In 1831, in his presidential address to the Geological Society, Adam Sedgwick publicly announced that his own variant of Creationism had been refuted:" Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126

 

[lucaspa]

A "good" theory is something that lines up with the truth as we find it in the word of God.

Who is "we"? Remember, all interpretations of the Bible are man-made theories. What makes your man-made theory superior? Also, remember that the physical universe is also the word of God. Written in a different book.

In order for something to be "good" it has to go beyond a superficial appearance. It has to actually be benificial.

Nope. In order to be a "good theory", the statements have to correspond to objective reality. Nothing more.

 

[lucaspa]

I asked that of every creationist and every theist I ran across over the next few years. …But answer came there none.

I wasn’t that way, nor could I be. I gave good, solid reasons behind each of my beliefs. ...Much to my surprise, that it not the attitude of creationists, or of theists in general, and I don’t understand that.

You seem to be equating theism with creationism. You are aware, are you not, that at least half the evolutionary biologists in history -- starting with Darwin -- are theists? You are aware, are you not, that the majority of Christians are evolutionists?

I can solidly and conclusively prove that biological evolution really is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species. I can also prove that it is the only logical conclusion, and that it is the only concept of origins with either evidentiary support or scientific validity, and I can prove that to your satisfaction, not mine.

I doubt you can prove it to the satisfaction of creationists. Just like Priestly could not prove oxygen combustion to the satisfaction of phlogiston chemists and Bohr could not prove quantum uncertainty to the satisfaction of Einstein. There are emotional reasons that creationists cannot accept evolution, and I doubt with your attitude that you can overcome them.

What you need to do is read Richard Berry's essay in Is God a Creationist? edited by Roland Frye. I've posted it at least 3 times on this forum. Anyone remember where?

If I could get anyone to discuss this with me like any normal person would, it would be very easy to do. In fact, I am betting that anyone who takes me up on that would publicly declare that they had changed their mind, and would be some form of ‘evolutionist’ from that point on.

Arrogant much? If you continue to have the scientific errors I've seen you have, I doubt you could convince an evolutionist of the truth of evolution.

But since they ignore all my questions too, then the only way to get them to answer me would be to declare a formal debate, and stipulate that if either side deliberately ignores the other’s repeated queries, charges or evidence, they would lose, and their defeat would be a matter of public record.

Garbage. Truth isn't decided by debate. It only decides who the best debator is. Evolutionists found this out in the debates during the late 1970s and early 1980s with creationists. Duane Gish would regularly cream the evolutionists. Didn't make creationism true. Also, remember that all you are showing is the ignorance of a person about the subject. You seem to confuse that with the weakness of the field. It's about your ego, not the truth.

I want to have an honest, one-on-one discussion (to conclusion) in order to prove my point once and for all, or fail in the attempt. Why will none of you accept such a simple, reasonable request? What changes would you demand I make to my challenge (and why) before you would dare take me on? What terms would any of you actually accept?

Notice the bold. That's why they should refuse you. It's not about truth for you. It's about your ego.

 

[JohnR7]

Who is "we"? Remember, all interpretations of the Bible are man-made theories. What makes your man-made theory superior? Also, remember that the physical universe is also the word of God. Written in a different book.

Bible interpertation must follow the seven rules:

http://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/3.htm

Now, you tell me, how do we seperate "good" evolutionary theory from the pop science nonsense that there is a abundance of. Oh, let me guess, peer review journals. Does this really protest the average Joe from nonsense that is being passed off as evolutionary theory? Also a peer review is only as good as the review. How often do you show us the reviews as compared to the articals?

Do you have seven rules we can follow to know what is true evolutionary theory as compared to the pop nonsense that is out there?
With a abundance of nonsense in print, what are evolutionists doing to resove this issue?

 

[Ishmael Borg]

I love it when John finds a new catch phrase. His new one is "pop science". I've already seen him use and misuse this term in a number of threads. Unfortunately, I think we'll be seeing a lot more of it before he stumbles onto the next one. Hey John, why don't you go practice your "pop religion", and leave this forum to people interested in real science (of which you know little or nothing).

 

[JohnR7]

Truth isn't decided by debate. It only decides who the best debator is.

Really, they teach you that much even in a High School level debate class. I also took a college level and a graduate level debate class. The outcome was the same on all three levels, the winner is going to be the one that puts the most work into being prepared and has the most "evidence" to submit.

Slackers need not apply.

 

[JohnR7]

I love it when John finds a new catch phrase. His new one is "pop science".

I get my best materal from evolutionists themselves.
I just look to find a honest one and they tell on themselves.

Hey John, why don't you go practice your "pop religion", and leave this forum to people interested in real science

Leave this forum to the infidels and the heathen? There are not that many creationists who are willing to put up with the boorish attitudes here.

Time and again I show evolutionists to be wrong and their response to that far to often is childish. Reponses like: why don't you leave the forum. We do not like you, we do not want you here.

Can I suggest the ignore feature if you do not want to read my posts. Then you will not have to put up with me rocking your security level and exposeing the lies and the deceptions that you have bought into.

 

[Non-Sequitur]

Time and again I show evolutionists to be wrong

Could you show me even one time when you have done this?

 

[USincognito]

Time and again I show evolutionists to be wrong and their response to that far to often is childish.

I hate to waste bandwidth showing how full of it you are, and I refuse to link again to your claim that wild animals won't work, while showing you a photo of an elephant working in a logging camp.

You're worthless in this debate John. Accept it.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Can I suggest the ignore feature if you do not want to read my posts. Then you will not have to put up with me rocking your security level and exposeing the lies and the deceptions that you have bought into.

I could never put you on ignore. You are far too entertaining. But if you left this forum today, never to return, I really wouldn't miss you that much.

You have never exposed a single viewpoint that I subscribe to as a lie or deception. Show me where you THINK you've done so (I'll hold my breath). You're just an ignorant loudmouth. My security level, and that of the entire scientific community, is not threatened in the least by your complete lack of scientific knowledge and discussion skills. You can't even spell the things you argue about (descent/decent).

 

[JohnR7]

Could you show me even one time when you have done this?

Often I do this by concentrating on things that evolutionists have already falsified. Take horse evolution for example. The old theory was falsified over 40 years ago, but one evolutionist came here and actually tried to defend the old theory of horse evolution with the arguement that they went from small to large and so forth. So I simply presented the new theory to show that the evolutionist who was trying to debate the old theory was wrong.

The only differnece between me and the way a evolutionist would do this is I do not care if I make evolutions look bad. That gets people mad at me.