A Simple Challenge for an Honest Debate

[JohnR7]

I'd say that you should refrain from mentioning it all from now on.

I have a idea, how about if I only post on things that you approve of and agree with. Is it ok if I check with you first to get your permission before I post anything on the board here. I would not want to upset you or offend you in any way.

 

[Mistermystery]

I have a idea, how about if I only post on things that you approve of and agree with. Is it ok if I check with you first to get your permission before I post anything on the board here. I would not want to upset you or offend you in any way.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[lucaspa]

Bible interpertation must follow the seven rules:

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

Then your interpretations are in trouble. They break several of the rules. 2-5 and 7 in particular.

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.

I was going to say comparison to the data. And, of course, the data is in peer-reviewed journals.

Does this really protest the average Joe from nonsense that is being passed off as evolutionary theory?

John, please list for us what you consider the 'nonsense'. I have a strong feeling that what you consider 'nonsense' is not.

Also a peer review is only as good as the review. How often do you show us the reviews as compared to the articals?

The reviews go to the author and editor. They are not available to the public. This is so the reviewers can be as critical as they want. I have shown you reviews of one of my papers.

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?

One rule: does the claims of the author correspond to the data?

 

[lucaspa]

The new theory invalidate the old theory.

John, new theories do not invalidate old. The only thing that can invalidate a theory is data.

Yet I have had people on this very board argue the old theory that horses evolved from small to large.

LOL! In general, they did. But that does not mean it was a straight line linear evolution from small to large. There were branches of the bush that locally went from larger to smaller, but those branches went extinct.

 

[lucaspa]

My question is: If evolution is like a bush then why do we have extinctions. Why can't the "bush" just produce some new branches or new species?

John, DArwin answered this. Sometimes the environment changes faster than the population can adapt. Variations are not produced on demand. They are random with respect to the needs of the individual or the population. If the necessary variations are not present or appear when the environment changes, too bad.

"Extinction caused by Natural Selection.
This subject will be more fully discussed in our chapter on Geology; but it must here be alluded to from being intimately connected with natural selection. Natural selection acts solely through the preservation of variations in some way advantageous, which consequently endure. Owing to the high geometrical rate of increase of all organic beings, each area is already fully stocked with inhabitants; and it follows from this, that as the favoured forms increase in number, so, generally, will the less favoured decrease and become rare. Rarity, as geology tells us, is the precursor to extinction. We can see that any form which is represented by few individuals will run a good chance of utter extinction, during great fluctuations in the nature of the seasons, or from a temporary increase in the number of its enemies. But we may go further than this; for, as new forms are produced, unless we admit that specific forms can go on indefinitely increasing in number, many old forms must become extinct. That the number of specific forms has not indefinitely increased, geology plainly tells us; and we shall presently attempt to show why it is that the number of species throughout the world has not become immeasurably great." Origiin 6th Edition, p 86

 

[lucaspa]

Of course, as I have already stated many times. I however am not a theist, and the reason I am not is because no one can give me one good reason to consider that option.

Sounds a lot like JohnR7, doesn't it? None of us can give him one good reason to consider evolution. However, it is not your atheism that concerns me. By all means, keep your belief. It is your tendency to equate your atheism with evolution and misuse evolution as a way to convert people to atheism.

And it isn't arrogance. The last time someone accepted my challenge, two years ago, he dropped out of the debate after the first round, and explained to his friends on thier discussion board that he couldn't continue because I made too much sense.

And you answer a claim of arrogance with more arrogance. It's still about you and not about truth or science.

because I took him at least far enough to understand why evolutionists believe what they do.

You are confusing your atheism with evolution again. Evolutionists do NOT "BELIEVE" evolution. Scientific theories are not "believed". They are accepted as (provisionally) correct based on the current data and they are discarded if and when data to falsify them shows up. The "belief" is atheism.

I've had enough of the zealots evoking the laymen's definition of theory while at the same time adhering to the scientist's definition of proof, so that evolution comes out being "just a theory that will never be proven". I'm also tired of the constant accusations that scientists are supposedly losing confidence in the evolutionary model. I am challenging that in the most appropriate manner, I think.

And I don't. You are not relying on the data, but on your skills as a debator. What happens when you run up against a better debator? You are also playing on the ignorance of the lay creationist. Again, beating a person does not have anything to do with the idea. Ideas are separate from the people who advocate them.

I am demonstrating my confidence in that

Back to your ego again. I don't like you putting the truth of evolution on your ability to debate. Truth doesn't depend on your debating ability, but that is what you are saying.

I am hoping to reach the innocent who may be an honest person, but who had been deceived by their system of indoctrination.

In that case, discuss the subject, don't debate. Debate is an inherently hostile environnment. If you want to convince people, you don't pick an adversarial format.

I have answered challenges from a handful of professional creationists boldly announcing that they would debate "any evolutionist anytime anywhere". However, when I stipulate that the debate be in writing, suddenly I am refused.

DUH! YECers have learned, like evolutionists learned in the 1970s and 80s about verbal debates. THat's not due to you, however.

If you notice Johnson and Behe have engaged in written debates lately. Maybe you haven't tried them?

 

[lucaspa]

I don't know. The only thing I have seen on it is the web site Luca's pointed out from the christian geology ministry.... http://www.kjvbible.org/

And this isn't your GAP theory. You have the GAP after the 6 days. This one has the gap between days 1 and 2 in Genesis 1.

 

[vajradhara]

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.

er... you've got to be kidding, right?

please... say it ain't so!

 

[lucaspa]

er... you've got to be kidding, right?

please... say it ain't so!

Sadly, I'm afraid it is. We also have a claim that apostasy in the Jerusalem Church of the disciples resulted when Nero was claimed to be a god.

 

[vajradhara]

Sadly, I'm afraid it is. We also have a claim that apostasy in the Jerusalem Church of the disciples resulted when Nero was claimed to be a god.

Namaste lucaspa,

thank you for the post.

boy oh boy...

i think that you captured it best when you said that people have an emotional investment and attachment to their beliefs.. and will cling to them regardless of the evidence.

....i'm not sure how that makes me feel... but, in some sense, it i'm saddened for everyone...

as Arikay likes to point out... folks don't have a problem with Germ Theory... yet... other "theories" are dismissed as "mere theories".

of course, i realize that the technical use of some words does not correspond with the lay use of the same term, which poses it's own set of problems, in my experience.

 

[Mistermystery]

er... you've got to be kidding, right?

please... say it ain't so!

Believe me, John took a turn for the worse lately.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

I have a idea, how about if I only post on things that you approve of and agree with. Is it ok if I check with you first to get your permission before I post anything on the board here. I would not want to upset you or offend you in any way.

It was only a suggestion. If you feel comfortable posting garbage that you can't support, who am I to stop you? Just don't be surprised at the responses.

 

[Dale]

JohnR7 in post #33:
<< Bible interpertation must follow the seven rules: >>
*
Never heard of them. Can you show me that Christ used these rules to interpret the Old Testament? Can you show that the Apostles utilized these rules when they quoted the OT?

 

[Gracchus]

JohnR7 in post #33:
<< Bible interpertation must follow the seven rules: >>
*
Never heard of them. Can you show me that Christ used these rules to interpret the Old Testament? Can you show that the Apostles utilized these rules when they quoted the OT?

It doesn't matter what Christ used. JohnR7 uses them. It is not yours to question.

 

[Dale]

JohnR7 in post #54:
<< So, when was the last time a new species was produced? >>
*
Ah, the "Where's our new species this week?" objection. We get it from folks who have proven that they can never grasp geologic time scales.
*
A new species of shore plant came into being in Britain, produced by hybridization with a plant from North America.

 

[Freedom777]

That's easy, it's a maptile. Or is it a remmal?

What ever it is it looks like a fully formed head to me, so much for transitional form.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

What ever it is it looks like a fully formed head to me, so much for transitional form.

That's one of the all time worst (and most laughable) creationist responses I've ever read here. I'm not even completely sure whether it's serious or not.

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

forms fingers in a dubya

whatever



Reptile or mammal

Its an easy question.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I am not a theist, and the reason I am not is because no one can give me one good reason to consider that option. [QUOTE=lucaspa]Sounds a lot like JohnR7, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. Now if at least a half-dozen theists showed me each of their reasons to believe in subsequent posts, and I ignored each of them the way JohnR7 does, then you might have a point.

None of us can give him one good reason to consider evolution.

The enormous difference between him and I is that there are several people trying to give him reasons and no one even pretending they can give me one.

To give you an example, someone once told me that I believed I was a soulless automaton. I asked him if he could give me one good reason to believe I had a soul, and his only reply was "Goodbye, soulless automaton". Well, what am I supposed to think of that?

However, it is not your atheism that concerns me. By all means, keep your belief.

My atheism bothers you a whole lot for some reason. But if I had any beliefs left to keep, I wouldn't be atheist.

It is your tendency to equate your atheism with evolution and misuse evolution as a way to convert people to atheism.

That's a strange assumption to make, and clearly indicates that you haven't been reading my posts, or that you haven't been paying attention to the ones you have read. Like all the times I cited Dr. Robert Bakker's book, Bones, Bibles, and Creation. I frequently cite Bakker because he is a Biblical scholar, and a fiery Pentecostal preacher, but he is also one of the world's more famous professional Ph.D. paleontologists and as such, is an advocate of evolutionary Theory. This, (I have repeated many times) proves you don't have to reject God to accept evolution. I don't know you managed to miss all these references in my previous posts, but I have stated flat-out several times that I am not pushing atheism, (nor want to) nor am I specifically criticizing Christianity; I am a proponent of reason over dogmatic faith, and I am attempting to find some way to reason with the faithful, if indeed they can be reasoned with, which even they often claim they cannot be.

it isn't arrogance. The last time someone accepted my challenge, two years ago, he dropped out of the debate after the first round, and explained to his friends on thier discussion board that he couldn't continue because I made too much sense.

And you answer a claim of arrogance with more arrogance. It's still about you and not about truth or science.

You missed the point again. My opponent realized that my position made sense, so he refused to continue, and even admitted as much to his friends on their discussion board, but wouldn't admit so to me, proving what I alleged of him in the first place; what he wants to believe is more important than what is really true. It ain't about me. Its about the inherent dishonesty of the creationism movement and their requirment to ignore both physical and logical evidence.

I took him at least far enough to understand why evolutionists believe what they do.

You are confusing your atheism with evolution again.

I have never confused atheism with evolution before. I have been a Christian, an occultist, a pantheist proponent of intelligent design, and a materialist. But I have always been evolutionist.

Evolutionists do NOT "BELIEVE" evolution. Scientific theories are not "believed". They are accepted as (provisionally) correct based on the current data and they are discarded if and when data to falsify them shows up.

I see that you are not familiar with any of my contributions to Talk.Origins where I have said exactly this about 100 times. I complain about the same thing with my son. He believes evolution on my word, but I tell him I don't want him to believe it, I want him to understand it, and accept his understanding rather than anything I say about it. This is what I try to stress to my opponents as well.

What you don't realize here is the context of my comparison of rationalist beliefs (based on reason and evidence) with the faith-based belief of dogmatists, which was explained to me once as "eating the word". It was a mental discipline the poster was proud of that gave him the ability to force himself to believe whatever the Bible said even if he knew it wasn't true.

The "belief" is atheism.

Atheism is a lack of belief, not a positive one. As you should have been aware by now, I remain open to any evidence of anything supernatural, so long as it isn't limited to tabloid-level authenticity.

I'm also tired of the constant accusations that scientists are supposedly losing confidence in the evolutionary model. I am challenging that in the most appropriate manner, I think.

And I don't. You are not relying on the data, but on your skills as a debator. What happens when you run up against a better debator?

It won't matter. As I have already told you, my skills as a debator are not even a factor here. If someone were to actually take me up on this, they would see that quickly enough. I present the reasons for the scientific conclusions and ask for alternative, non-evolutionist explanations of critical points. Once my opponents see these, they realize that evolutionary answers are the only applicable ones. But because they're forbidden to admit that, they drop out of the debate without answering any of those questions.

You are also playing on the ignorance of the lay creationist.

Wrong again. In each of my attempted debates, I have attempted to educate the creationist in question. That's why I said it had to be a quid-pro-quo series of questions and answers. I have to find what false impressions they've been given, and correct those. But again, many creationists believe they are not even permitted to accept the real definitions of microevolution and macroevolution (just for one example). So once they hear it, and see that their definition can't be found in any source related to biology, they drop out again, unable to be reasoned with.

Again, beating a person does not have anything to do with the idea. Ideas are separate from the people who advocate them.

Understood. That's why I say that I can't win (except by default) unless my opponent actually adopts an acceptance of evolution himself. I'm not trying to win on any mere technicality. I'm trying to show that creationism is nothing more than a pack of lies, and I'm betting that if any creationist were honest enough to meet that challenge, he would soon change his world-view accordingly. Of course since apparently none of them ever will take that offer, I'll never know if I can really do it or not.

Back to your ego again. I don't like you putting the truth of evolution on your ability to debate. Truth doesn't depend on your debating ability, but that is what you are saying.

Or more importantly, it is put on creationism's utter inability to explain any of the actual details seen by evolutionary biologists without resorting to those same explanations. That's what I'm trying to demonstrate.

I am hoping to reach the innocent who may be an honest person, but who had been deceived by their system of indoctrination.

In that case, discuss the subject, don't debate. Debate is an inherently hostile environnment. If you want to convince people, you don't pick an adversarial format.

You are not at all familiar with my tactics and have badly misjudged me, as you seem inclined to do. Why do you make so many negative assumptions about me?

I don't get adversarial until it is evident my opponent will not respond. I do discuss as opposed to debate. It has to be a discussion because it is not dependant on just making supportive points but in answering questions and properly addressing points of contention to a point of mutual conclusion.

when I stipulate that the debate be in writing, suddenly I am refused.

DUH! YECers have learned, like evolutionists learned in the 1970s and 80s about verbal debates. THat's not due to you, however.

Nor do I take credit for it, as I have expressed so many times already. You sure like to put weird words in my mouth.

If you notice Johnson and Behe have engaged in written debates lately. Maybe you haven't tried them?

No, I wasn't aware of that. I wonder what their parameters are? Dr. Walt Brown also says he is willing to engage in a written debate. But his requirements for that are that he will only debate "evolutionists" with doctorate degrees, and then they need to secure three willing editors each associated with $10 million+ publishers who are somehow willing to publish the debate in book form (internet is too easy to access I guess) and these publishers must also have no strong feelings on the issue either way. That's a lot of stupid requirements that are hard to acheive, where my offer is much much easier, and proves the point much more efficiently, to a much broader audience.