Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8883 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-18-2019 12:38 PM
202 online now:
Aussie, frako, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Taq (9 members, 193 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: candle2
Post Volume:
Total: 845,860 Year: 897/19,786 Month: 897/1,731 Week: 254/438 Day: 39/33 Hour: 6/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Automatic Great Debate
Stile
Member
Posts: 3345
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1 of 10 (662747)
05-18-2012 2:47 PM


I think it would be cool if the Great Debate feature could be automated.

Reason for Automation:
Starting a Great Debate can seem overwhelming and difficult to setup up. I know (and most of you know) it isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that it can seem that way. Especially to new users or users not accustomed to formal settings. Such a thing could help with giving creationists an easy way to get into a more controlled debate format (less dogpiling).

Proposed Method for Implementation:
By using something similar to the Private Messaging system, any user can send any other user an invitation to a Great Debate, which would include the opening post and the list of users to be allowed to post within the Great Debate. This can be set up to allow not only 1 vs. 1, but also only 3 or 4 or 5 users... Although I would recommend a maximum (Admin controllable in the board's configuration settings).
Before going onto the other users, the Great Debate opening post PM would go to moderators for approval of the topic (if the board is using a moderator screening process such as this one). Once approved, the Great Debate PM is then sent to all users on the Great Debate user list.
On receipt of the Great Debate PM, all users would be able to see the moderator-approved opening post, and the list of to-be-allowed posters for the debate.
The list of allowed users would also show (via different colouring) who has accepted, declined or not yet decided for the Great Debate.
Once all users have accepted or declined, the debate would automatically begin with all accepting users.

Notes:
-If only 1 user accepts the Great Debate and all others decline... the Great Debate is not opened, but closed and the users are notified of such.
-If you're feeling ambitious, the User List could be split into "For" and "Against" categories concerning the opening post. This way the Great Debate could also be automatically closed if all of one side declined the debate (regardless of how many on the other side accepted).
-When the Great Debate is opened, the "Participants" list could be slightly modified to reflect the Great Debate user list (that is, also showing the users involved even if they have yet to make a post). Or, this could even be split into the "For" and "Against" categories previously mentioned.
-The Great Debate could be given a different-looking title in the thread listings and be placed within the normal forums (no need for a specific "Great Debate" forum if each Great Debate thread is obvious enough as to what it is). This would allow for Great Debates on specific topics to be located with the rest of the threads/forums that pertain to that topic.

...But I think it would be a lot of work.
Thinking up work for others to do is fun!!

Edited by Stile, : Just adding more work for Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-19-2012 8:22 AM Stile has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12571
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 2 of 10 (662828)
05-19-2012 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Stile
05-18-2012 2:47 PM


There are already plans to create inclusive and exclusive threads, but I don't know when this might happen. The topic promotion process will become more automated at the same time. I like your ideas. You don't happen to know how to program?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Stile, posted 05-18-2012 2:47 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Stile, posted 05-21-2012 8:25 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3345
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 3 of 10 (663159)
05-21-2012 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
05-19-2012 8:22 AM


Admin writes:

There are already plans to create inclusive and exclusive threads, but I don't know when this might happen.

Right. Now that you mention it, I think you've discussed this on the board before.

You don't happen to know how to program?

I program PLCs for a living. Computers that control automated assembly lines. I haven't programmed-regular-computer-language since university (over 10 years ago).
If you're looking for volunteer's, I'm afraid I don't have the time these days. My posting here's way down, and even my reading has been cut back. Ah well, life always moves


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 05-19-2012 8:22 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 10 (663709)
05-26-2012 7:04 AM


Bump for Dr Adequate and Jzyehoshua
This is a bump for Dr Adequate and Jzyehoshua.

Here's Jzyehoshua's post:

Jzyehoshua writes:

I will debate with you. I make a lot of new and original points. While they are not conclusive, they are evidentiary, which is all that macroevolution rests on, circumstantial evidence open to interpretation. There is not evidence one way or the other to draw a conclusion with any degree of certainty. At any rate, here are some of my points for you to respond to, that you will not find anywhere else but me. I will give links to CreationWiki articles (quoting content written by me) where I provide sources for specific detail, or other sources as necessary, in building a case.
Please pardon the slow build-up, major evidence will be presented in later points as I provide groundwork establishing early points.

1. Macroevolution is not provable like Microevolution. While we can witness small-scale evolution between species, this is compatible with God creating core species in Genesis 1 and telling them to bring forth after their "kinds", a Hebrew word similar to our concept of genera/family. Much of the 'proof' for evolutionary theory has in fact been proof for Micro, not Macro, evolution, like Darwin's finches or moths on trees. Furthermore, we define what a species is, as pointed out by WYOTK authors The Brothers Winn, and while we've been watching bacteria (which evolve 525,000 times faster than we do) for hundreds of years since inventing the microscope and they've adapted as bacteria, they've never become a new, 'higher' form of life.
http://www.whatyououghttoknow.com/...wins-intelligent-design

2. The Scopes Trial never actually proved Evolution, just consisted of a series of mocking attacks on the Bible's claims of the supernatural. While it swayed public opinion towards Evolution, Evolutionary theory itself has never truly been required to show proof in a court of law. Brent Dalrymple in "The Age of the Earth" for example expressed frustration that he and other Evolutionists were not allowed to present evidence in a case that dissolved last minute.

3. Alfred Russel Wallace, one of the two co-discoverers of Evolution was exiled from the scientific community for his "little heresy" when he began speaking in support of a Creator responsible for inbreathing life. The scientific community dislikes mentioning him because he refused to acknowledge evolutionary theory disproved a Creator or that Evolution was incompatible with the Bible. Again, while Microevolution and Natural Selection can be proven to be fact, Macro specifically and the Big Bang theory remain very hypothetical and subject to interpretive speculation.
http://creationwiki.org/Alfred_Russel_Wallace

4. Darwin himself acknowledged four major weaknesses to his theory. Two comprise Intelligent Design (which is not itself a competing theory to Evolution), Complexity indicative of design, and Instinct indicative of design. The other two are in my opinion more concrete, the lack of transitional forms and sterility caused by interspeciary breeding. To this day sterility in interspeciary breeding remains a serious and largely unaddressed weakness for the theory, since interbreeding of species often results in sterility (e.g. Horses + Donkeys = sterile Mules, Tigers + Lions = sterile Ligers).
http://creationwiki.org/Charles_Darwin#Weaknesses

5. Concerning transitional forms, Over the past decade, a series of controversies have engulfed evolutionary theory, as an array of fossil discoveries have provided new knowledge on the fossil record. However, these discoveries have been so controversial as to require even major publications begin acknowledging, first in 2001 after the discovery of O. tugenesis, and climaxing in 2007 with the discovery that Habilis and Erectus coexisted, that the human evolutionary tree now looks like a "bush with many branches". One after another of the species previously labeled "missing links," ancestors of modern humans, have been conceded to be "offshoots" because of early complexity, as they are discovered to walk upright, coexist with other hominins, or prove similar to modern humans, rather than showing early similarity to apes.

Essentially we've found a number of new hominins and these have been wreaking havoc on evolutionary theory over the past decade. Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Orrorin tugenensis, and Ardipithecus ramidus (Ardi) now make for our three oldest hominin fossils. Trouble is, they are way too human-like, showing far more early complexity and similarity to modern humans, including evidence of early bipedalism, than was supposed to exist so far back in the human lineage. The discovery of such early bipedalism then led to the discovery that both Afarensis (Lucy) and Homo erectus walked upright as well. A new fossil, Australopithecus sediba, also appears to have walked upright. We also found the first chimp fossil in 2005, and it revealed that chimps lived east of the Rift Valley, which would play a role in the eventual abandonment of the famous Savannah Hypothesis that humans evolved without chimps because of leaving the African jungles for the savannahs (since chimps also left).

We've also discovered species which were supposed to be linear descendants of one another actually coexisted, and thus couldn't have evolved from one another. Homo erectus and Homo habilis both coexisted, Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) and Australopithecus ramidus (Ardi) both coexisted, and we even found some brand new fossils that coexisted with modern humans and Neanderthals, like Homo floresiensis ('Hobbit Man') and the Denisovans. According to Encyclopaedia Britannica's current dating of Australopiths, Ar. kaddaba and Ar. ramidus coexisted; A. afarensis, K. platyops, A. bahrelgazali, and A. africanus all coexisted; P. aethiopicus, A. africanus, A. garhi, H. habilis, and H. rudolfensis all coexisted; and A. sediba, P. boisei, H. rudolfensis, and H. habilis all coexisted as well.[34] A large number of hominins therefore coexisted and thus are 'offshoots' which could not have evolved from one another, resulting in a messy 'bush'.
http://creationwiki.org/...itional_form#Recent_controversies

6. If the world is as old as is commonly claimed, we should see animals today evolving at a rate consistent with this, over thousands and millions of years. That is why it is shocking for the scientific community that the accumulating evidence shows instead that Microevolution occurs over decades, rather than thousands and millions of years.
http://creationwiki.org/...ion#Rapid_Microevolutionary_rates

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.
http://creationwiki.org/Punctuated_equilibrium

8. Recent evidence has begun growing for Canopy Theory, showing that earth's atmosphere had far higher levels of oxygen resulting in massive insects. Fossilized raindrops also show a thicker atmosphere. These discoveries followed shortly after Creationist Carl Baugh patented a hyperbaric biosphere showing insects and other life changed in longevity and size given higher oxygen levels, and the scientific community then caught up to his research (without giving him credit I might add).
http://creationwiki.org/Canopy_theory#Scientific

9. Uniformitarianism was originally invented to replace Catastrophism because Lyell disliked his mentor William Buckland using Catastrophism to support a Biblical Flood. However, we can now recognize such catastrophes occurred. Nevertheless, scientists refuse to consider the implications of catastrophes occurring, that such catastrophes would affect atmospheric isotopic levels and isotope decay rates used to infer radiometric dating results - results that were based on the theory of Uniformitarianism. Even though Gradualism has been abandoned in Punctuated Equilibrium theory and Microevolution seen today (given the rapid rates per Point 6), scientists adhere dogmatically to the belief that isotopic decay rates and atmospheric levels were gradual enough to allow for their predicted dating results. The evidence of the fossil record overwhelmingly shows in earth's past that a major catastrophe or catastrophes simultaneously wiped out most of earth's life, including 90+% of sea life. The only disagreements between Creationists and Evolutionists on this subject are (a) how many of these events there were, (b) when these events occurred, and (c) whether a Global Flood could be an acceptable explanation. But that a catastrophe did occur is not debatable. Furthermore, evidence this occurred rapidly is also available, such as trilobites buried in life position by rapid sedimentation. The mere fact of fossilization indicates a rapid catastrophe since depositional rates are to slow to effectively prevent scavengers and erosion from destroying fossilized material, as mentioned in the book "Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity", ch. 3, by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_12
http://creationwiki.org/Catastrophism
http://creationwiki.org/...tics_should_consider_Christianity

Also, I have limited time, so much of the debate will likely occur on weekends, at least from my end.

It can be broken down into each section to be discussed from a the Creationism side and the ToE side. For instance:

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.
http://creationwiki.org/Punctuated_equilibrium

For example (but not limited to) Jzyehoshua can discuss how the animals evolved in the 6000 years to what we have today and Dr Adequate can discuss how PE has assisted in it's roll of assisting the ToE.

This IMO should be done in a Great Debate format and possibly a peanut gallery can be created for discussing the content from each side in reference to this debate in a respectful manner.

Edited by Chuck77, : Edited out some snark in the first couple sentances and reworded the first sentance to add " a bump" to it.


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:05 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16081
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 5 of 10 (663710)
05-26-2012 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Chuck77
05-26-2012 7:04 AM


Re: Bump for Dr Adequate and Jzyehoshua
That is not the debate that I've invited him to. I have proposed a systematic exposition of the facts, which he can attempt to dispute, not that I should refute a random jumble of stuff that creationists have made up. If he wants to do that, he should do it one topic at a time, like everyone else.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Chuck77, posted 05-26-2012 7:04 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Chuck77, posted 05-26-2012 7:08 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 8 by Chuck77, posted 05-26-2012 7:12 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 10 (663712)
05-26-2012 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 7:05 AM


Re: Bump for Dr Adequate and Jzyehoshua
Dr Adequate writes:

* bump *
It's been nearly two years, and the coward, liar, and fool has still not found a creationist with the guts to take me on.

Every now and then I like to taunt him with this fact.

Coward. Liar. Fool.

Message 151

Are backing out of this "bump" of yours? Well it seems you found a Creationist with the "guts" to take you on. Are you backing out?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:05 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:09 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16081
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


Message 7 of 10 (663713)
05-26-2012 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Chuck77
05-26-2012 7:08 AM


Re: Bump for Dr Adequate and Jzyehoshua
Are backing out of this "bump" of yours?

No.

Well it seems you found a Creationist with the "guts" to take you on.

Possibly he will. I'm looking forward to it.

Are you backing out?

No.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Chuck77, posted 05-26-2012 7:08 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 10 (663714)
05-26-2012 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Adequate
05-26-2012 7:05 AM


Re: Bump for Dr Adequate and Jzyehoshua
Dr Adequate writes:

If he wants to do that, he should do it one topic at a time, like everyone else.

Yes, no problem In a Great Debate format. Do you need everyone elses help? What's the matter? Why are you hesitant now to not take advantage of:

Dr Adequate writes:

It's been nearly two years, and the coward, liar, and fool has still not found a creationist with the guts to take me on.

Message 151

Well, now's your chance. Or all you all talk Dr Adequate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:05 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-26-2012 7:46 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 10 by AdminPD, posted 05-26-2012 3:51 PM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16081
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 6.4


(1)
Message 9 of 10 (663727)
05-26-2012 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chuck77
05-26-2012 7:12 AM


Re: Bump for Dr Adequate and Jzyehoshua
I'm not sure what you think you're talking about.

I will, if he likes, debate his random assortment of errors --- in fact, as you can see if you look, I'm presently doing so on another thread. The question is: will he also be willing to debate me in the proposed format?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chuck77, posted 05-26-2012 7:12 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


(1)
Message 10 of 10 (663766)
05-26-2012 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chuck77
05-26-2012 7:12 AM


Topic Please!!!!!
Chuck,

This is not the thread for Great Debate Challenges and I doubt that Jzyehoshua needs a mouthpiece. Let him make or break his own challenges.

Thanks
AdminPD


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chuck77, posted 05-26-2012 7:12 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019