|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
 Posted - 10/02/2004 : 23:43:47 [Permalink]
|
| Endogenous retrovirusses a good topic? I like 'em. And is old earth/young earth also part of the debate? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2004 : 00:08:39 [Permalink]
|
My advice: don't fall for the "debate" crap at all, even if it's in writing. The offer is being made in bad faith. First, one side will be required to find even a single "evolutionist." I don't know of any.
But the biggest trap is the "three best arguments" crapola. The modern theory of evolution is supported best by the concordance of all of the evidence, from biology, chemistry, physics, genetics, archeology, paleontology, etc., etc. There are thousands - if not millions - of tiny "best" arguments for evolution, none "less best" than any other.
Genetic similarities are just one tiny piece of the overall evolutionary puzzle. As is the fossil record, radiometric dating, and all the rest. But as soon as the "evolutionist" side brings that up, it's almost guaranteed that the creationists will cry "foul" at the presentation of the thousands of individual arguments that make up the current (and very complex) evolutionary theory. They're not going to accept that there's just one argument for evolution, which comes with a bazillion sub-sections.
This "debate" is bad news. My advice is to avoid it. Publicize this thread - or even just this post - so that others who might be reading those forums can stay the hell away, also. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Plyss
Skeptic Friend
Netherlands
231 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2004 : 05:38:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
At the Skeptictimes forum, tk has deleted every post under the Creation vs. Evolution forum, and replaced it with one post calling for a formal debate:
Just outof interest, do they consider evolution to be biological evolution or do they throw in abiogenesis, cosmology and the big bang? |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2004 : 06:40:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Plyss
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
At the Skeptictimes forum, tk has deleted every post under the Creation vs. Evolution forum, and replaced it with one post calling for a formal debate:
Just outof interest, do they consider evolution to be biological evolution or do they throw in abiogenesis, cosmology and the big bang?
Those should not be included, but bet your ass they'll bring that crap up. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2004 : 09:17:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
DaveW:
all of the evidence, from biology, chemistry, physics, genetics, archeology, paleontology, etc., etc. There are thousands - if not millions - of tiny "best" arguments for evolution, none "less best" than any other.
Actually, that could be one of the subjects... I have to agree with Dave though. Ya can't win and this one is so rinky dink it isn't worth the trouble. They will be the judges. Tell them if they can get Hovind to join in, that would be different.. Point out that Hovind will never agree to a debate in writting and ask them if they can think of a reason why he will refuse to do that?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2004 : 11:35:12 [Permalink]
|
Actually, Kil has the seed of a wonderful idea.
Tell them if they can get a famous creationist - one of the "leading lights" of Biblical creationism, not that wishy-washy ID stuff - to agree to a written debate, then there will be plenty of evolutionary biologists who'll jump at such an exchange. Our job then simply becomes one of writing invitations to several of them, and see who wants the "job."
That is, if they'll get rid of the "three best arguments" nonsense. Counter with a paragraph limit, instead (like 12 paragraphs on opening, and six on rebuttal). And if they're really serious, they'll give the opposing side choice of going first or second.
Oh, and either get a limit placed on the debate which says that it'll stick to biological evolution or not. The ground rules should explain that before anyone gets to typing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2004 : 12:45:26 [Permalink]
|
They get one leading creationist, we get one leading evolutionary biologist, and they "slug it out" in writing.
Otherwise, it's a bunch of amatuers vs. another bunch of amateurs, and who cares? That may sound like an "argument from authority," but it's less that than an acknowledgement that neither we nor the folks on SkepticTimes are experts in the field, with the knowledge and resources that being an expert entails.
Actually, just forget the whole thing. Let the offer of a debate go unanswered. That tk can unashamedly delete all the posts in a folder and substitute it with this is a sign that if things don't go perfectly for him, he'll just delete the debate, too. Or, he'll go ahead and let only creationists view and comment on it after it's done. Heck, he's totally unpredictable, since he claims that the Internet (as a whole!) is an unreliable source of information, and yet he and his cohorts claim to be have "refuted" evolution in their posts, which are on the Internet. He's invalidated his entire web site, yet thinks that a debate there will resolve something.
Also, the "ccdi9" thing is still left hanging. As such, their best strategy is to simply "rebut" evolutionary arguments by saying, "well, due to frogby, galahumpus, tooksyagi and zingle, the arguments you've just made are incorrect." Yes, they appear to have the moral grounding with which to simply invent "falsifications," without feeling any need to support their assertions, and then say "we win." The words - such as those above - don't have to even mean anything, especially when they (tksgurl and the rest) feel no need to share the definitions. We're on a whole different level than verlch's "bats are blind" argument: this is an arena where it appears okay to say "bats are wugglegilly, therefore evolution doesn't happen, period, end of discussion (since it's too complex for you to understand)."
So, given a lack of honesty and ethics, it seems that treating the debate offer seriously is itself a tremendous waste of time. As I said before, I think it's an offer made in bad faith. It's simply an offer to make you, Ricky, more frustrated and/or more "humiliated" (guaranteed that they think think they've humiliated you). They want to ridicule, patronize and condescned to you more than they already have.
In the immortal words of Admiral Akbar, "It's a trap!" |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2004 : 12:56:59 [Permalink]
|
I'd like it. And I have no doubt that Gary Hurd, Joe Meert, Glenn Morton, Marty Leipzig et al would break a leg for the chance to get one of these 'big guns' in a written format.
But, it ain't going to happen because Hovind and the rest of the bible-blatherers all well know that Gary Hurd, Joe Meert, Glenn Morton, Marty Leipzig, et al would break a leg to do a tit-in-the-mangle to them in a written format.
Guys, let's put this in perspective; this is not life or death. This is merely some fundie college kid with a page and a slightly off-balance following, and the results, good or ill for either side, will ultimatly mean exactly nothing.
Says I, let's just try to get the most reasonable terms possible, then go and have some fun.
Edited 'cause I got Joe Meert's name wrong.
 |
"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 10/03/2004 18:58:14 |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2004 : 14:04:44 [Permalink]
|
Well, if the idea - per filthy - is just to have fun with 'em, then I would say that one should go to 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, pick a few of the possible evidences against evolution presented there, and frame the debate in terms of creationists' complete inability to bring evidence of any of them to the table. For examples: a Devonian bunny; a drastically different genetic cladistic tree from the morphological one; a snail which photosynthesizes, or a human with a vestigal gizzard.
Even in the minds of "evolutionists," these sorts of things would clearly negate all or part of the current theory, demanding scientific change, but not a single creationist has ever advanced such positive evidence. Not once. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2004 : 14:39:46 [Permalink]
|
For a good laugh, just have a quick look at their Creation/Evolution folder...
http://skeptictimes.golivewire.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=31
Then answer this question: How tightly is the skeptic times forum moderated?
Edited to add: Then read the ground rules, prepare to collect a lot of dust rolling on the floor... |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 10/03/2004 14:40:51 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2004 : 14:57:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, if the idea - per filthy - is just to have fun with 'em, then I would say that one should go to 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, pick a few of the possible evidences against evolution presented there, and frame the debate in terms of creationists' complete inability to bring evidence of any of them to the table. For examples: a Devonian bunny; a drastically different genetic cladistic tree from the morphological one; a snail which photosynthesizes, or a human with a vestigal gizzard.
Even in the minds of "evolutionists," these sorts of things would clearly negate all or part of the current theory, demanding scientific change, but not a single creationist has ever advanced such positive evidence. Not once.
Yeah, there we go! I'd forgotten about the Big 29.
Indeed, our side could base it's entire argument on it. Then rebut the nonsense Genesis claims that are sure to show up with Flood Math.
Excellent!
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2004 : 16:14:42 [Permalink]
|
Good grief. tk is losing it. He told someone that "Calling people lies or their information lies is not acceptable," but then three sentences later says, "And by the way, your information on Dr. Hovind was a lie, as well as many of your posts. We don't need liars at a forum like this, I suggest you stay at the ever deceitful christian forums." Should I send him a note asking him to pay me for a new Hypocrisy Meter?
He also mentions "claims of YEC which have been proven," but doesn't mention any of them, and claims that "Radioactive decay has been refuted by Creationists," which sure reads to me as if he thinks that radioactive decay doesn't happen at all!
And what's up with that folder's rule #9: "No trying to entice Creationists"? Entice them to what? How? I get chills just thinking about this one.
Then there's So Why the Skeptic Times? In this monologue, tk actually has the nerve to say, "no matter what you believe you will be accepted here," but then in the forum rules, says that atheists aren't allowed in most of the folders, and one of the allowed ones (the one which prompted this thread) has recently been gutted.
I bring these things up only to further emphasize that I think everyone should simply avoid a "debate" over there. It is clear that tk's governance is capricious, vague, discriminatory and self-contradictory. I'm sure he will also enforce the folder rules along with the debate rules, meaning that "attacks on creationist sources" will be forbidden. Which means that even saying something like "those creation arguments are wrong due to yada-yada..." could get hacked out of the debate.
I predict that if some "evolutionist" or other does, indeed, make a post in that folder, the post will quickly become Swiss-cheese and thus lose its intended meaning. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
