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

Dr Adequate writes:OK, but that's not how the debate is going to go. That's not the format. The format is this: I present the evidence for evolution, you see if you can be sufficiently dull-witted to fail to understand it. Any responses you make are to be actual responses to my points, not a crazy Gish Gallop of any nonsense you can think of.

Jzyehoshua writes:7. Punctuated Equilibrium was itself designed to address the increasingly apparent stasis in the fossil record. Darwin and Lyell assumed Uniformitarianism, that evolution (along with geologic processes in general) is slow and gradual. The trouble is the fossil record is now very apparently in disagreement with this, showing slow stasis within parent species as if God created core species that while adapting with Microevolution, never truly changed transitionally per Macroevolution. The lack of transitions and stasis led to the speculative, unevidenced, and unfalsifiable theory of "Punk Eek" that evolution went very slowly for most of history (equilibrium), and then very rapidly within short time periods (punctuated). However, as Don Batten has pointed out, it creates a "no-lose" situation for evolution where the evidence against Gradualism that once would have indicated Evolution is false is now used to "support" the truly unevidenced theory of Punctuated Equilibrium.
Punctuated equilibrium - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Dr Adequate writes:You would of course have your say, but it would have to be in response to what I'm saying, i.e. you'd have to wait to be wrong about any particular topic until just after I've been right about it.

Then I'd explain why you were wrong, and then we'd move on to the next topic.

We have to have some sort of structure --- it can't just be you making errors at random and me explaining why they're wrong, I have to be allowed to systematically make my case.

If you want to present your side, then we could have a parallel debate in which you lay out all the evidence for creationism: you know, the evidence for talking snakes, that knowledge of good and evil came from eating a magic fruit, that the first woman was made out of the first man's rib, and so forth.

Same rules: you lay out all the most convincing evidence for talking snakes, and then I question it and see if it really stands up, and then we move on to the next topic. Are you up for that?

Dr Adequate writes:Now, as Jywhatsisname (sic) has not yet objected to the format of the debate, perhaps you could stop trying to think up excuses for him to bail on it. Have you thought that perhaps he's in possession of cojones and is not in need of your help?

Jzyehoshua writes:I thought the debate was supposed to involve evidence "for/against Evolution"? Your format would only allow your side to be presented, correct? At any rate, I've presented mine and am happy to see what you have to offer, although I can imagine much could be seen at Talk Origins.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentI imagine you will bring up phylogenetic trees and vestigial organs at some point?