Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”

Eye-Squared-R writes:The topic:

1. As stated in Message 1, EVC Forum is a great resource. But is EVC Forum like Butta?
2. Why, after nine months, are there no firm commitments (free of extraneous excuses to withdraw) to debate the scientific evidence for/against neo-Darwinism in a professional publishable format?

Dr Adequate writes:What the thread does not contain is any evidence of a creationist willing to participate; or evidence that Eye-Squared R has been willing to look for one.

Message 1 Subject: Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution Any Takers?Knowledgeable individuals who have expressed #1 and/or #2 below are the ideal folks to engage the debate.
#1) Neo-Darwinism is essentially proven by the evidence for all practical purposes
and/or
#2) People who do not believe neo-Darwinism (to be a valid mechanism for universal common descent) are ignorant, stupid, deluded, irrational, insane, or wickedSo this thread topic is narrowly defined. The question is:
Are you willing to engage in a professionally moderated publishable debate on behalf of evolution? I’ll end this similar to one of Zenmonkey’s posts:
Any Takers?Gotta Love EVC Forum — What a Resource!
Thanks — and Question Everything!
Respectfully,
Eye-Squared-REdited by Eye-Squared-R, 01-16-2011 9:35 AM: Per Dr. Adequate's request in Message 66, revised: #1) Neo-Darwinism is unequivocally true and scientifically verified fact - essentially proven by the evidence for all practical purposes to read #1) Neo-Darwinism is essentially proven by the evidence for all practical purposes

Eye-Squared-R writes:Unfortunately, we can’t move this process forward without FIRM commitments from folks like yourself.

Eye-Squared-R writes:For now, I must maintain your status as out until you are willing and able to make a FIRM commitment in this thread.

cavediver writes:Out - I am a theoretical physicist and there are many better qualified and experienced than I to explain evolutionary theory. But if you should want to arrange a similar debate on cosmological issues, let me know.

Dr Adequate writes: You were expecting more people to write a book for you? Without a hint of a flicker of interest from a publisher?Your knowledge of human nature is ... unimpressive.

Eye-Squared-R writes:I’ve done enough investigation to know the need will arise. The subject matter will likely include several disciplines of science as evidenced by the topical categories listed at EVC Forum. Since I want you to have every opportunity and every possible resource available for a successful outcome, I’ll assist you in securing FIRM commitments in the various likely disciplines to be debated. List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to chip in for Dr. Adequate in a professional written publishable debate concerning Evolution Vs. Creation involving the scientific disciplines of:Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34):
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here:

Eye-Squared-R writes:Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick.

Eye-Squared-R writes:I’m sorry doctor. A FIRM commitment requires someone who can do more than ignore.
Those who are unable to negotiate fundamental physics (Exercises 1 & 2 in Message 71) are most definitely not ready for Publishable Prime-Time.It’s really easy to make a FIRM commitment, doctor, if you have confidence in your beliefs and abilities.
I’ll repeat the requirements for you:

1. To confirm in writing that you are firmly committed and that you will not withdraw for weak excuses you’ve hinted at in this thread such as
   1. I don’t have time to ‘write a book for you. (which was never requested)
   2. I can’t debate because I don’t like his/her literary style.
   3. Ignoring posts to you and withdrawing while mumbling batshit crazy or silly irrelevant dishonest blather. If you were to actually encounter such, you must be willing and able to confront it and expose it — to fulfill your self-expressed ethical duty to try to speak the truth and help educate the millions of neo-Darwinian unbelievers. You would further lose credibility if you were to half-heartedly commit and then ultimately withdrew while expressing nothing more convincing than insults.
2. Demonstrate your scientific Big Bat of Facts ability (along with someone who knows physics) by addressing Exercises 1 and 2 in Message 71. Those Exercises were even presented in your requested format in Message 66.
3. Recruit others for publicly stated FIRM commitments to assist you in the disciplines that I’m repeating below. In light of your recent inability to respond to the exercises, you must be able to secure firmly committed resources in disciplines that you may not be well versed.

List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to chip in with Dr. Adequate in a professional written publishable debate concerning Evolution Vs. Creation involving the scientific disciplines of:

Eye-Squared-R writes:You talk about cojones in Message 68 and now you appear to hide behind the couch of literary style in response to Messages 71 and 72. When you begin ignoring, you don’t mess around!
I’ll answer for the third time doctor
You can rest assured - you will have a qualified creationist for a written publishable debate as noted in Message 72 and Message 78 (if you ever do meet the requirements yourself). The steps I’ve taken were also given in Message 78, but you’re apparently not committed enough to read posts addressed to you. We remain in Step 1. I’m sorry doctor. A FIRM commitment requires someone who can do more than ignore.
Those who are unable to negotiate fundamental physics (Exercises 1 & 2 in Message 71) are most definitely not ready for Publishable Prime-Time.It’s really easy to make a FIRM commitment, doctor, if you have confidence in your beliefs and abilities.
I’ll repeat the requirements for you:

1. To confirm in writing that you are firmly committed and that you will not withdraw for weak excuses you’ve hinted at in this thread such as
   1. I don’t have time to ‘write a book for you. (which was never requested)
   2. I can’t debate because I don’t like his/her literary style.
   3. Ignoring posts to you and withdrawing while mumbling batshit crazy or silly irrelevant dishonest blather. If you were to actually encounter such, you must be willing and able to confront it and expose it — to fulfill your self-expressed ethical duty to try to speak the truth and help educate the millions of neo-Darwinian unbelievers. You would further lose credibility if you were to half-heartedly commit and then ultimately withdrew while expressing nothing more convincing than insults.
2. Demonstrate your scientific Big Bat of Facts ability (along with someone who knows physics) by addressing Exercises 1 and 2 in Message 71. Those Exercises were even presented in your requested format in Message 66.
3. Recruit others for publicly stated FIRM commitments to assist you in the disciplines that I’m repeating below. In light of your recent inability to respond to the exercises, you must be able to secure firmly committed resources in disciplines that you may not be well versed.

List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to chip in with Dr. Adequate in a professional written publishable debate concerning Evolution Vs. Creation involving the scientific disciplines of:

Dr Adequate writes:If you're so eager to see the debate begin, why don't you find a creationist for him?

Eye-Squared-R writes:I answered your question in Message 72, repeated here:
you can rest assured - you will have a qualified creationist for a written publishable debate.The steps I’ve taken are as you might expect

1. Survey creationists with Ph.D. credentials in science.
2. Contact qualified creationists and communicate the opportunity for a professional science only publishable debate.
3. Investigate preferred candidates.

The effort to secure a FIRM commitment from the creationist side has been MUCH easier than I’ve found in this thread. In fact, as it stands now, Messages 71 and 72 reveal there is no demonstrated commitment on your part — only complaints that appear to be potential excuses to quit.
This despite your statement in Message 47 of thread Ignorant, stupid or insane? (Or maybe wicked?).

Dr Adequate writes:Which part of "YES" do you not understand?

Dr Adequate writes:Because that was not what I was asked to do in the OP.

subbie writes: So far you are the only person in this thread to use the word "signed."

Eye-Squared-R writes:Your EVC peers may be sensitive to my quoting them by their EVC Forum moniker — so I’ll use substitute monikers for the purpose of these exercises. Since your peers have expressed exceptionally high confidence in their skills and abilities regarding physics, they shall be referred to as: Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #1 and #2. In this particular case, I’ve devised a new acronym to describe the behavior and language of Aspirant to Sophisticated Science #2 while flaming out in Message 56 — I shall refer to this type response by either an evolutionist or a creationist as a GNAW: (Gets Nasty At Will) Surely you’d agree gnawing doesn’t lend credibility in a professional setting.If we bantered these assertions concerning Ohm’s Law and the nature of Real Power back and forth many times, they could eventually qualify as PRATTs (evolutionist term for Points Refuted A Thousand Times). I perceive you expect a walk in the park with some commonly inferred PRATTs. That may be the case, or it may not. Potential difficulties for one or both sides of this issue may be the reason a publishable debate hasn’t been done before (that I could find) in a professional written format that could be used in educational settings. Time will tell if we can pull this off.In any case, I’ve penned a new acronym to describe these types of banter when a highly confident Adherent to Sophisticated Science apparently doesn’t understand everything he/she knows - PR-NUT: (Points Refuted — Not Understood Totally)! And for the Flame-Out types, we could add the acronym JOB: (Just Obnoxious Behavior).Now doctor, your submission should delineate whether these exercises in physical science constitute potential PRATTs, PR-NUTs, PR-NUTGNAWs or PR-NUTJOBs.Again, these assignments are for your benefit. They should assist you in identifying and listing FIRM commitments from your best possible resources at EVC Forum to chip in regarding your professional response in various scientific disciplines. They should also assist you in determining a rigorous methodology to respond to any unexpected challenges in a publishable debate. To attract an interested publisher and potential commercial interest for the proposed professional debate, you should be as prepared and as successful as possible in every branch of science. If you choose to decline these assignments for whatever reason, then your commitment for a publishable debate will reasonably be considered as questionable and tentative.We’re still in Step 1. Please note carefully, I’ll give it a few more weeks for this process to play out and see how you respond.
I’m not prone to engage frequent banter consisting of misdirected ridicule.
Those folks generally discredit themselves. But when appropriate, I’ll address them.Silence doesn’t have to be deafening — for me, it is opportunity for deeper thought and analytical reflection.In the meantime, I’ll continue preparing for Step 2 by investigating the best qualified creationist for your debating pleasure.I’m glad you’re here and appreciate the resources at EVC Forum.
All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

Eye-Squared-R writes:Are you prepared to submit and defend these examples (asserting exception) offered from your peers for a hypothetical written response in a publishable debate? Incidentally, I’ve done some homework for you in Message 48 (derivations), Message 60, and other messages in this thread. You must determine whether I2R (power) is always manifest completely as Heat or whether it is partially manifest as potential energy or electromagnetic energy as your EvC Forum peers claim above.Oh, and please note I have not "equated" power to heat in units - that poor strawman has been beaten to death. My position is that whenever you are viewing "Real" Power (I2R), you are necessarily viewing all that power manifest exclusively and totally as heat.Again, you’ll likely need a trusted expert in physics to aid and assist you in affirming or negating the responses from your peers for your hypothetical professional written submission. This stuff isn’t subjective or beholden to one’s personal philosophy. It’s either right or wrong. I’m sure you’ll desire the utmost accuracy since your name will be associated with your analysis and response.

Dr Adequate writes:The answer is YES.

Eye-Squared-R writes:(Grinning) That was cojones pronounced kuh-hoh-neys mentioned by Dr. Adequate

Eye-Squared-R writes:Regardless, we can’t tell if doc has an athletic bone in his body but I’m an old linebacker for a large school that played in a state championship. That head-banging was good preparation for this thread. For all doc’s obsession with ‘cojones,’ I’d like to see him suit up, buckle his chinstrap, and help me garner firm commitments toward the best qualified debate team possible for neo-Darwinism.