|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
 Posted - 10/07/2004 : 10:07:14 [Permalink]
|
I have accepted the debate over at skeptictimes. Here is my "accpetance speech":
I gladly accept the challenge.
I, too, will define my position. I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic. My theologic position is that the natural world is not affected by the supernatural in any discernable way, and knowledge of the supernatural is a function of philosophy, not science. I see science and religion as two different realms of knowledge that require two different methodologies. I do not believe that evolution falsifies the teachings of christianity, nor do I see evolution as "proof" that christianity is a false religion. I believe that christianity is a consistent and rational religion. In my opinion, science has never shown a single reason not to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, nor will it ever be able to do so. I am not here to attack christianity. I know that my scientific position may contradict the beliefs of some christians, but my scientific position is also held by many throughout the christian world.
My view is that evolution is science and should be taught in public school science classes. Evolution is a tentative theory, as is every other theory in science. I will show that evolution is testable through the scientific method, potentially falsifiable, and I will also show that evolution is supported by empirical data. The Theory of Evolution is a product of the scientific method, and therefore is a viable science. I will be arguing that life has evolved from a single, universal common ancestor, that the biodiversity we see today is a product of the mechanisms of evolution (random mutation, natural selection, and speciation), and that the fossil record supports descent with modification. As you can guess, I also accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old as defined in the field of geology.
As we all know, Darwin wrote Origin of Species, not Origin of Life. In fact, Darwin only spent a paragraph or so talking about the origin of life in his treatise. Even then, Darwin proposed that God breathed life into the first organisms, much like the view of many theistic evolutionists. The Theory of Evolution is a theory within biology while the Theory of Origins, better known as Abiogenesis, is a theory within chemistry. For this reason I will be presenting evidence that supports the diversification of life. If jimi presents arguments against abiogenesis I will gladly discuss this in the rebuttal portion of the debate. I would also like to stay away from the Big Bang and other theories in cosmology to keep the debate focused on evolution. This is only my preference, jimi may discuss this if he wishes and I will address his evidence.
The proposed structure for the debate consists of two rounds. I would like to add an aditional round of rebuttals. This will prevent false information from being used in the first round of rebuttals by either party. I do not think that jimi is deceptive, and I think he believes the same about me. However, what each of us may think is solid data may in fact be contradicted by other data that the other party is unaware of. I will not directly attack creationist sources. I will, however, use evidence to show that their conclusions are wrong. In science, no one should ever confuse an attack on someone's theory as an attack on one's person.
I look forward to an informative and mature debate.
|
 |
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 10:20:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
"Or, perhaps she's one of his dissociated personalities..."
Now that made me laugh out loud...thanks for that one. I think you may be on to somthing. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 10:45:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
<shrug> How many micros does it take to make a macro? <shrug>
Again, I am reminded of the Equus series, or rather 'group' might be a better description. That one is so well documented in the fossil record that it actually demonstrates both macro and micro. A multitude of species, and more, branches and side-branches of the line. And, I think, still more to come.
The thing about it is that YECs can simply deny the whole thing, without a shread of support, then claim debate victory over the deluded 'Darwinists.' What crap!
Cheap rhetoric is all they have, but they will tout it as Scientific Truth every time, and the audiences thrash about in orgasmic and ignorant delignt.
I want Hovind's lying head on a platter! Someone fetch it to me at once!
Who do you think you are, Salome?
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 11:00:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
<shrug> How many micros does it take to make a macro? <shrug>
Again, I am reminded of the Equus series, or rather 'group' might be a better description. That one is so well documented in the fossil record that it actually demonstrates both macro and micro. A multitude of species, and more, branches and side-branches of the line. And, I think, still more to come.
The thing about it is that YECs can simply deny the whole thing, without a shread of support, then claim debate victory over the deluded 'Darwinists.' What crap!
Cheap rhetoric is all they have, but they will tout it as Scientific Truth every time, and the audiences thrash about in orgasmic and ignorant delignt.
I want Hovind's lying head on a platter! Someone fetch it to me at once!
Who do you think you are, Salome?
Nay, I am Filthy, one of the Great Old Ones, and I hunger for brains ('though I doubt I'd get much more than a thin, stale sandwich from Hovind)........
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 11:02:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I gladly accept the challenge.
I, too, will define my position. I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic. My theologic position is that the natural world is not affected by the supernatural in any discernable way, and knowledge of the supernatural is a function of philosophy, not science. I see science and religion as two different realms of knowledge that require two different methodologies. I do not believe that evolution falsifies the teachings of christianity, nor do I see evolution as "proof" that christianity is a false religion. I believe that christianity is a consistent and rational religion. In my opinion, science has never shown a single reason not to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, nor will it ever be able to do so. I am not here to attack christianity. I know that my scientific position may contradict the beliefs of some christians, but my scientific position is also held by many throughout the christian world.
Nicely done, Peptide.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 11:07:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Dave, Kil, @, whoever, maybe consider making a new topic, locked where all the posts from the debate would go?
Anyways, wonder if any of you saw this. These are kevkev's suggested arguments for the debate:
quote:
1. proof of noah's ark
2. proof of canopy theory
3. proof dino's and man lived together
Do they plan on getting to evolution? I mean, the only one there that has to do with evolution is 3. I'm disappointed that ccdi9 didn't make it in the list, that would of been fun to show that it doesn't exist.
Those are the topics they want to discuss? Pul-lease! I would be delighted to review these 'proofs' of which he speaks. I would also like to see a living jack-a-lope.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/07/2004 11:10:12 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 11:10:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
<shrug> How many micros does it take to make a macro? <shrug>
Again, I am reminded of the Equus series, or rather 'group' might be a better description. That one is so well documented in the fossil record that it actually demonstrates both macro and micro. A multitude of species, and more, branches and side-branches of the line. And, I think, still more to come.
The thing about it is that YECs can simply deny the whole thing, without a shread of support, then claim debate victory over the deluded 'Darwinists.' What crap!
Cheap rhetoric is all they have, but they will tout it as Scientific Truth every time, and the audiences thrash about in orgasmic and ignorant delignt.
I want Hovind's lying head on a platter! Someone fetch it to me at once!
Who do you think you are, Salome?
Nay, I am Filthy, one of the Great Old Ones, and I hunger for brains ('though I doubt I'd get much more than a thin, stale sandwich from Hovind)........
So you're saying if I loved you I'd let you eat his BRAAAAAAINS.
(See The Ruturn of the Living Dead for joke.) |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 12:11:09 [Permalink]
|
| Peptide, nicely done! |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 12:13:57 [Permalink]
|
My goodness I am afraid this 'debate' is going to be quite frustrating. Look at the earlier 'debate' between jimi & mike.
http://skeptictimes.golivewire.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=46&sid=4e752f4583ef77d381a464b84832ca41
From the debate -
quote:
Kind": God said that animals bring forth after their kind. So I would say that if animals can "bring forth" then they are the same kind of animal. And to be totally honest...I don't think you have to be real smart to figure it out...I mean which of these 4 is not the same kind of organism? (ie: which one is not like the others?)
1. Dog
2. Wolf
3. Coyote
4. Banana
It appears that jimi believes that a wolf can give birth to a coyote. At least I think that is what he is saying. I think jimi is "a lost ball in high weeds".
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 13:03:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
My goodness I am afraid this 'debate' is going to be quite frustrating. Look at the earlier 'debate' between jimi & mike.
http://skeptictimes.golivewire.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=46&sid=4e752f4583ef77d381a464b84832ca41
From the debate -
quote:
Kind": God said that animals bring forth after their kind. So I would say that if animals can "bring forth" then they are the same kind of animal. And to be totally honest...I don't think you have to be real smart to figure it out...I mean which of these 4 is not the same kind of organism? (ie: which one is not like the others?)
1. Dog
2. Wolf
3. Coyote
4. Banana
It appears that jimi believes that a wolf can give birth to a coyote. At least I think that is what he is saying. I think jimi is "a lost ball in high weeds".
Always a good question: "Define 'kind' please? It it species, genera, sub-family, family, what?"
To my knowledge, no ome has ever given a satisfactory nor even a consistant answer to this cannonball.
I rather think the banana is between jimi's ears, if he thinks that.
Intrestingly enough, wolves kill coyotes and feral dogs at every oportunity. I am not sure of the hybrid statistics in captivity, but in the field, they are nil.
So, as they can inter-breed, are canines a kind? I dunno. We have failed to take into consideration foxes and kit-foxes, and cape hunting dogs, which can certainly not intergrade with wolves.
But if ability to interbreed it to be a standard, what about snakes? A boid cannot intergrade with an elapid nor a viperid, nor colubrids with any of the others. So are they all still snake kind?
Hmm. Looks like we need another definition. Aha, I got it!! We have mammal kind, reptile kind people kind and so forth. This wraps it up in a tidy package and solves Noah's lack of space problem in one fell swoop, as it is understood that he only had to have kinds aboard the Ark. (Not sure, but I think it was Woodmorappe that came up with this 'kinds on the Ark' nonsense.)
A bit of an exageration, of course, but that's pretty much the way it goes. Amusing, up to a point.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 15:29:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Hmm. Looks like we need another definition. Aha, I got it!! We have mammal kind, reptile kind people kind and so forth. This wraps it up in a tidy package and solves Noah's lack of space problem in one fell swoop, as it is understood that he only had to have kinds aboard the Ark. (Not sure, but I think it was Woodmorappe that came up with this 'kinds on the Ark' nonsense.)
A bit of an exageration, of course, but that's pretty much the way it goes. Amusing, up to a point.
I prefer vertebrate and invertebrate as the created kinds. That way there was enough room for shuffleboard on the ark. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 15:59:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I believe that christianity is a consistent and rational religion
uhh..... Really?
Well.... good luck debating those nitwits overthere.... |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
