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

Hello all — detailed individual responses to Vimesy, Subbie, Bluegenes, Panda, Larni, and Coragyps below.

Here is wishing you all the best yet in the new year, 2013.

This invitation began in June of 2010 as a response to the discussion topic categorically judging folks with different beliefs as ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (click link).

This is clearly a long term invitation to gather the most qualified team of evolution believers possible for a publishable debate of the scientific evidence regarding neo-Darwin and creation beliefs. Hopefully, we’ll find qualified commitments this year for an evolution debate team including science credentials that publishers could market.

IF you come often to EvC Forum for reinforcement of neo-Darwin beliefs and a sense of belonging where you enjoy chatting up mutual egos - while avoiding consideration of alternatives and judging neo-Darwin skeptics to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked
Then your mind is likely bricked up in a protective vault for your preferred philosophy you would naturally avoid a publishable debate that could expose scientific weakness or flaws in your beliefs and potentially educate folks.

In that case, you should stop reading here, skip this lengthy post, and move along to avoid internal conflict, mental anguish, and cognitive dissonance.

IF you ‘can’t be bothered’ (click link) to read this lengthy post and respond with integrity
Then you’re clearly unwilling to read or engage a thorough professional publishable debate of the science and you should move along without snarky comments to avoid further embarrassment.

IF you’re prone to irrational hyper-sensitivity and anger (click link for sub-title) when viewing format emphasis such as font size and colors that don’t please you
Then you should skip this post as well.

Hyper-sensitive readers could appeal to Administrator Moose (Adminnemooseus) to ban folks and protect neo-Darwin believers from fonts and formats that allegedly induce personal pain (click link). Unfortunately, Adminnemooseus has declined to clarify his previous format consternation as requested at the bottom of Message 140 (click link).

IF you decide to proceed reading this and you’d like to comment
Then get some coffee or refreshments and take the time to review this thread. Please address the topic and spare us more irrelevant odiferous chat.

IF you cannot firmly commit to assemble a qualified neo-Darwin team for commitment to a publishable debate
Then please explain why you cannot commit yourself and also help find scientists qualified and committed to lead the team for a publishable debate of the evidence concerning evolution versus creation.

Otherwise, you all could improve the quality of EvC Forum by taking entirely off-topic responses (like bookies, derbies, and imaginary Time Cubes) to the Peanut Gallery where they belong — or maybe Facebook. Respecting forum rules could avoid further warnings or suspensions from forum administrators.

The hope was that a published debate would be made available to further educate millions of Americans judged at Evc Forum to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked - based upon their beliefs.

The hope for a publishable debate assumed judgments upon others were scientific and rational (rather than philosophical and emotional) — and could be reasonably defended.

If judgments of creation beliefs were valid, a rational neo-Darwin believer should respond by welcoming an opportunity to assemble the most qualified and committed neo-Darwin debate team possible for publication that could expose and reduce alleged ignorance, stupidity, insanity, and wickedness — especially regarding science.

A quality published debate could create tremendous publicity for you while ostensibly educating a multitude of Americans allegedly afflicted with mental maladies.
A successful published debate by intelligent, bold, and heroic neo-Darwin believers could ostensibly help inoculate a new generation from inferred ignorance in science.

Jazzns, apparently unaware of this thread where no qualified neo-Darwin believers have committed, offers additional insights (reverse context) in Message 26 (click link) of another thread admitting evolutionists have lost a lot of live debates engaging the creation perspective:

Jazzns in Message 26 of another thread writes:

Similarly, those same (people) refuse time and again to engage in written debate where it is much easier to destroy their arguments. It’s also much easier to distribute a written debate and have it be the focus of intense criticism over a longer period of time.

(Parenthetical edit mine to exclude unnecessary reference to ‘liars’.)

Sadly getting a meaningful response concerning a qualified neo-Darwin written debate team here at EvC Forum has been like herding randomly mutated cats into a barn of Bulldogs screeches, emotional rants, and unqualified pretense including several expressions of pain and hurt by evolution believers are about all we have in this thread.

For convenience, the requests from previous posts and the results to date are repeated here:

Now, we need assistance from every neo-Darwin believer at EvC Forum
Please be resourceful and assist us in securing firm commitments from the most qualified team possible to represent evolution in a professional written publishable debate.
Note that not a single qualified person has stepped forward to make a firm commitment in any of these areas of science.

List of EVC Forum Members (or any others anywhere) FIRMLY committed to a professional written publishable debate concerning neo-Darwinism involving the scientific disciplines of:

Biology — Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One.
Cosmology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here (Note: Cavediver expressed willingness in Message 34): No One.
Dates and Dating - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One.
Geology - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One.
Physics - Insert EVC Forum Evolutionist Name(s) Here: No One.

Aside from potential fame and glory, a rational and humane response to this invitation to help educate the allegedly mentally deficient or afflicted skeptics of neo-Darwin theory should be one of empathy — a desire to help others deemed less fortunate rather than judging them as liars or cursing at them.

Reward Offer for the Person Capable of Assembling a Qualified and Committed neo-Darwin Publishable Debate Team Willing and Able to Engage Any and All Scientists Concerning Evidence for Evolution Versus Creation:

Rational and humane empathy should manifest itself toward others with assistance and commitment in times of alleged affliction.
Empathy toward education would be much more effective toward influencing a culture than debasing yourselves publicly with juvenile judgments.
Irrational responses, emotion, anger, and pretense offer no help in this process.

Regrettably, appeals for empathy have failed to secure any commitment from any qualified neo-Darwin folks in any discipline of science for publishable debate on a broad platform to help educate the millions of folks judged with mental or moral afflictions (click link).

Therefore, apparently lacking empathy as a motivator to form a qualified publishable debate team, it appears a reward is required to induce evolution believers to validate presumptuous judgments upon others.
Maybe a fist full of dollars

I’m offering a $100 reward for the person who can assimilate a committed and qualified neo-Darwin debate team from anywhere including Ph. D. credentials in the natural or applied sciences. The reward would be contingent upon the team actually completing a written professionally moderated publishable debate of evidence for evolution (random mutations and natural selection) versus creation. The primary objective is to help educate millions of skeptics concerning the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science.

Interested observers may reasonably inquire whether neo-Darwin believers who are highly judgmental of creation beliefs are aware of conflicting science they’d rather not debate in a professional publishable venue that could help educate potentially millions of skeptics.

Rather than sincere commitments including any qualified scientists, we have several neo-Darwin respondents in this thread who have unfortunately deprecated their own knowledge and understanding of basic science with misplaced condescension and confidence. We have several others compelled to repeatedly contribute nothing but nonsense relative to the invitations and requirements for a publishable debate — thereby reflecting poorly upon EvC Forum.

An esteemed long-term EvC Forum member presents a rationale of cognitive dissonance that may explain this anti-social behavior among judgmental folks as well as the lack of commitment by neo-Darwin believers. Although not intended toward neo-Darwin believers, the glove fits snugly here.

See Message 1 (click link) of the Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs thread.

RAZD in Message 1 of the Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs thread writes:

Lowering the importance of conflicting information is usually done in several ways: attacking the messenger (ad hominem), denial, calling the evidence lies or part of a conspiracy theory, for instance.

An apparent attempt to diminish cognitive dissonance using ad hominem is given near the bottom of Message 15 of this thread as the reason RAZD declines commitment to debate all the science against the creation perspective in a professional publishable venue: RAZD writes: The reason for these conditions (topical science restrictions for a written publishable debate) is to eliminate the terminally deluded and insane people (with whom there is no chance of a rational debate), as well as those too stupid to understand such concepts, thus leaving us with those who are ignorant but capable of learning ....

terminally deluded insane people no chance of rational debate too stupid to understand
Lack of civil discourse (click link) is often rooted in emotion or confined philosophy rather than reason. RAZD further explains this behavior in Message 126 of another thread where RAZD writes: The more you are emotionally attached to your beliefs the more you feel anger when they are threatened.

Casting insults and tooting one’s own horn (click link) from a relative safe harbor (EvC Forum) while declining direct written debate of all the science in a publishable venue is puzzling at best.

If the categorical judgments in the gold font quote from an EvC Forum member above were true, then an invitation for a written publishable debate should be welcomed by many neo-Darwin believers who are qualified in science to expose inferred errors and flaws, thereby validating these character judgments for all to see and learn.

Coyote comments on the power of written debates in Message 15 (click link) of another thread: they (written debates) require evidence, logic, and lots of references. Showmanship has no place there, and the glib response can be carefully examined and rebutted.

Coyote in Message 361 of another thread also presents rationale that reinforces this invitation for commitment from many evolution believers who are qualified in all the various scientific disciplines listed: You can't compartmentalize things: science works as a whole, and facts that contradict parts of science have to be accommodated. Science must change when it is contradicted by reliable facts..

However, invitations for commitment to assimilating a qualified publishable neo-Darwin debate team have clearly not been welcomed here at EvC Forum.

What this thread reveals instead is the piled-up snark of derogatory dodges, illegitimate taunts, and morbid mocks — including a trick-or-treat charade (click link) by an unemployed math guy who fancies himself a real scientist with imaginary credentials that publishers could magically market to the general public — despite evidence to the contrary presented in this thread from a publisher’s managing editor.

No sincere commitments to assemble a qualified team of neo-Darwin believers for contractual engagement and publication.
No apparent effort.

Arrogance often results in forlorn exposure (click link) of flawed character or beliefs.
Other examples of arrogant error in this thread include flawed claims by evolution believers concerning Ohm’s Law and the ‘real world’ relationships between power, heat, work, and entropy.

We have Ph. D. type folks here at EvC Forum professing to know the physics of how the entire universe came into existence
Unfortunately, we have self-proclaimed ‘experts’ in science confidently reinforcing fundamental errors accompanied by foul fits of emotion (click links).
We have unequivocal failure by these folks to understand the basic physics behind their clothes dryer or garage door opener (see details in Message 79 and especially Message 140).

Continuing analysis by a leading EvC Forum member in Message 15 of the Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs thread:

RAZD in Message 15 of the Cognitive Dissonance thread (with my comments added) writes:

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating (or debating in a professionally moderated publishable setting) in a neutral, scientific way.

What I come to understand from looking at cognitive dissonance between cultural groups is that reinforcement from within a person’s cultural group is a buffer\barrier against being forced to change the belief due to the confirmation bias they can fall back on.

one of the ways to reduce dissonance is to retreat to a place of comfort where you are surrounded by people with the same confirmation bias and beliefs -- the creationist (or evolutionist) sites and forums that welcome them and give them a sense of belonging.

(bold emphasis and parenthetical comments mine)

Continuing to the end of Message 15 of that dissonance thread, we see an astonishing display of active dissonance, by one who declines this invitation in Message 1 to debate all the science in a publishable venue that could be widely marketed and distributed in ‘the real world’

RAZD in Message 15 of the Cognitive Dissonance thread (after declining to commit to a publishable debate that could reach millions) writes:

But the problem is not how to deal with individual creationists here, but to deal with this larger picture of a cultural belief that is reinforced by rather extensive material from creationist sites, especially for those used to (and expecting) to be able to just make reasonable sounding arguments rather than ones supported by evidence.

How do we reach outside the bubble of this forum and into the real world eh?
(emphasis mine)

Click Photo to Enlarge: Did He Just Say That? Shock at Behavioral Dissonance.

We may consider the term ‘behavioral dissonance’ as a kind description of one’s actions not matching one’s words.
Inconsistent expressions of positions compared to decisions or behavior.

This invitation to publishable debate on a big stage is reasonable and should be expected when judgments of ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked (click link) are pronounced upon the intelligence and character of millions of people with different beliefs.

The published debate would be widely popular if done professionally — a great resource. If neo-Darwin believers were successful, the published debate could then be leveraged to deal with this larger picture of a cultural belief and further educate those millions of folks judged to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked. The potential target audience would be roughly 85% of Americans (according to Gallup) who are skeptical that all life forms originated from a common ancestor via random mutations and natural selection

IF you (judgmental neo-Darwin believers) were secure and confident concerning all the evidence and all the science
Then you could all reach outside the bubble of this forum and into the real world. You could assimilate a stellar science team (including Ph. D. type folks in science for publication credentials) with firm commitments to a Professionally Moderated Written Publishable Debate for evolution and against evidence for creation.

Cleary, a professional moderator would reject the mostly dissonant responses by neo-Darwin believers in this thread — since they’re not professional and they add nothing meaningful.

A genuine effort has been made to be respectful and thorough in this thread over time despite many wasteful and snarky responses.
Therefore, a dose of indulgence with levity is overdue.

You seem very proud while judging other folks here.
But no bona-fide scientists will commit to a publishable debate
Clint’s not much for politics but he may have a couple of comments and questions

Click Photo to Enlarge: Some Possible Questions Along With Some Famous Quotes Below

A man’s got to know his limitations (click link for video clip)

How confident are you judging the intelligence or character of those who don’t believe in evolution Low Medium or High?
Will you assemble a qualified team of your best neo-Darwin deputies (including bona-fide science credentials) to meet in the street for a publishable debate for all to see?

An unqualified Barney Fife swagger alone is wholly inadequate for Main Street publishers.
We need some real neo-Darwin scientists confident and qualified folks like Marshall Stockburn and his deputies.

I know what you’re thinking
You’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?
Well do ya?

Declining the invitation in Message 1 displays the cognitive dissonance described by RAZD especially when unwilling and/or unable to assemble a qualified team to engage and expose those differing beliefs described as terminally deluded insane too stupid to understand in a professional manner that could have a broad influence on cultural beliefs.

IF the scientific evidence for neo-Darwin theory is strong enough to judge the character of skeptics
Then someone should explain why neither Dr. Adequate nor I can find a qualified and committed neo-Darwin debate team including Ph. D. credentials in science for contractual engagement and publication anywhere
Anyone?

Otherwise, the arrogant errors in science and behavioral dissonance in this thread should (hopefully) improve the judgment processes by those who may not understand everything they ‘know’ and acknowledge they may esteem their beliefs too highly for rational judgments upon the intelligence and character of others.

There’s not a word by qualified scientists in recent posts concerning the proposed publishable debate invitation in Message 1.
Surely, there is a neo-Darwin believer at EvC Forum who can do better than we’ve seen from Message 174 onward.

The worst possible scenario is to commit to a publishable debate and then ultimately withdraw - for any reason. Again, a leading EvC Forum member offers words that may be helpful here. The warning is directed to another member in Message 166 (click link) of another thread — but it is also appropriate here:

RAZD warning another member about evidence that may be difficult to assimilate - writes:

Let me warn you that you will be confronted with evidence that you will find difficult to understand or assimilate, not because the evidence is difficult, but because it does not match your worldview. This is due to cognitive dissonance, something that affects anyone confronting evidence that does not match their worldview

This thread is littered with woeful diversions, charades, and dispersions from judgmental folks apparently constrained by narrow philosophy.
Some folks are so philosophically impaired they refuse to type the word ‘Christ’ while debasing Christian believers with ‘xians’ (click link).
A publishable debate concerning the science of origins (species or otherwise) that did not fare well for such constrained psyches would cut to the intolerable bone marrow. Others display a pathological pretense to project unqualified superiority (click links).

Further irrelevant responses may get your moniker and message number painted on one of the vehicles in the pile-up of burning crashes on the EvC Forum ‘low road’ traffic jam of this thread.

Click Photo to Enlarge: Low Road Closed - Excessive Flame-Out in Basic Science

Below are sequential responses to the more recent topic-evading ‘low road’ crash posts.

Again

IF you are philosophically constrained by dogged unwillingness to consider evidence against evolution and for a creator
Then you should skip the remainder of this message and move along in your chosen dogma.

Vimesy in Message 175 chats up egos with imaginary bookies and derbies rather than addressing the topic of this thread:

Responding to Dr. Adequate who was incapacitated from his ‘hurting eyes’ - Vimesy in Message 175 further evades the thread topic and writes:

The bookies have now closed all books on this year's Gish Gallop Derby.

To any rational reader, it’s the ‘Darwinian Dodge’ that is predominant in this thread Vimesy. Dodging the invitation to commitment to a publishable debate has practically become an art form here.

It would be most excellent if you could break that trend and respond with integrity to the thread topic concerning a qualified neo-Darwin debate team for a written publication.

Since you brought Dr. Duane Gish into this discussion, Dr. Gish holds a Ph. D. in biochemistry from UC Berkely. He did biomedical research and taught at Cornell University Medical College.

The term ‘Gish Gallop’ originated with Eugenie Scott, Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE).
The term is intended by some (such as you Vimesy) to be a derogatory reference to live oral debates by Dr. Gish.
Though you may not be aware, Eugenie also offered this warning (click link) for those considering live debates with creationists:

Eugenie Scott at TalkOrigins cautioning evolutionists about losing live science debates against the creationist perspective writes:

Sure, there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually "to defend good science" or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can't figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution -- and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate

The worse situation is that he [evolutionist] and his friends think he did just fine, and remain ignorant of the fact that the majority of the audience left the auditorium convinced that evolution was "a theory in crisis"

Before you accept a debate, consider if what you are about to do will harm the cause more than promote it. Many [evolutionist] scientists justify the debate by saying, "creationists [scientists] will claim that [evolutionist] scientists are afraid to debate them." So what? Who are they going to make the claim to? Their own supporters? A letter in the local newspaper that will be read by how many people, and remembered for how long?

If the alternative is to show that scientists are not afraid of creationists by having some poor scientist get beat up on the debating stage, are we better off?

And let's face it -- some scientists do it out of a sense of ego. Gee, I'm really going to make mincemeat out of that creationist, they think. Well, are you such a big shot debater that you can guarantee that people in the audience aren't going to go off after your debate and make life miserable for the local science teacher? "Gee, Mrs. Brown, I went to this neat debate the other day. You'd be surprised at how weak evolution is. Are you going to teach it this year?" Want to lay odds on Mrs. Brown teaching evolution again? Is your ego more important than students learning evolution?
Think about it.

[Clarifications or comments added]

Regrettably, Eugenie Scott has also unequivocally declined this invitation on behalf of herself and each member of her staff at the National Center for Science Education for a written publishable debate strictly limited to scientific evidence and physical mechanisms to help Educate millions of folks concerning the science of origins (see the black background section of Message 132 for details).

As with judgmental EvC Forum folks here, one may reasonably muse whether the National Center for Science Education is capable of successfully presenting and defending their neo-Darwin beliefs in a professionally moderated written debate of the science

Since education is the purported charter of Ms. Eugenie Scott’s organization to promote evolution over creation, it’s unclear why a moderated written head-to-head debate would be shunned as a decisive educational opportunity to be widely publicized — possibly a ‘best-seller’ with reviews on talk shows.

Due to Dr. Adequate’s denial that well-known evolution believers such as Eugenie Scott avoid debate of the evidence in this age of scientific enlightenment, Dr. Adequate has been tasked to investigate and report back to us as requested in Exercise #3 of Message 172 (click link).

Dr. Adequate has struggled with every request made in this thread and has responded to none. Since Dr. Adequate’s hurting eyes have most recently rendered him incapable of responding, Exercise #3 is repeated here in hopes that you or someone could assist him Vimesy

Bolder-dash makes a statement toward the bottom of Message 35 (click link) of your (Dr. Adequate’s) thread to which you respond in Message 41:

Bolder-dash in Message 35 of Dr. Adequate’s thread writes:

Oh and by the way, do you know that Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, as well as the entire body of the National Academy of Science all believe as a policy that evolutionists never fair well debating creationists, so they should avoid it when possible?

Dr. Adequate in Message 41 of that same thread writes:

I do not "know" the stuff that you have made up in your head, because it is not, of course, true.

Well I never. Get away.

You do know that Ms. Eugenie Scott declined this invitation to a publishable debate.
But then again, you’ve indicated that you can’t be bothered (click link) to read the facts presented in this thread.
Please review Message 132 (click link) in which you can read my personal request sent to Eugenie Scott and the entire staff at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) as part of my efforts to find any qualified neo-Darwin believers willing to engage a written publishable debate with the creationist perspective.

Since you’re prone to calling people liars, we have another exercise for you Dr. Adequate.
Another request you’ll likely side-step in transparent necessity for self-preservation. This can be added to the first two exercises you’ve failed in Message 71.
Exercise #3

Here is Eugenie Scott’s email address available on the NCSE web site along with the entire staff: scott@ncse.com.

Now You email Eugenie and request that she and her staff join you in this proposed written publishable debate for evolution against the creationist perspective.

Explain to Eugenie, as I did, that the objective would only concern the observed evidence and interpretation of the evidence (excluding religion or philosophy) in a format that could be widely published and help educate millions of neo-Darwin skeptics.

This way, Dr. Adequate - you can know stuff.
But it takes more effort than calling folks liars from your easy chair on EvC Forum’s front porch.

Since a professional written publishable debate of the science could gain wide publicity and have tremendous influence to help to educate millions of neo-Darwin skeptics on the hot cultural issue of neo-Darwinism the key question is why this invitation would not be welcomed and leveraged as a huge opportunity for the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) to educate the millions of common folks who are neo-Darwin skeptics.

Then we request that you report Eugenie Scott’s response back to us Dr. Adequate.
If qualified neo-Darwin believers claim a widely publicized written debate would not help educate the masses, then perhaps you could explain or offer evidence for that counter-intuitive claim.

After this simple exercise, we can follow up with each of the others mentioned above.
This should be an exercise that you would welcome if you were sincere with a firm commitment to a publishable debate.
If you’re all talk and no walk, all claim and no game, all boast and no roast, then you’ll continue to pretend folks fear your demonstrated ability to do nothing. Maybe write some more disjointed Poetry about how tough you are.

Hopefully, you can do better than Message 145 (click link) with that statuesque statement that you can’t be bothered.
Further lack of response from you may incite rational observers to further reflect upon your words in Message 151 above: coward, liar, fool.

In addition, an overwhelming extraordinarily successful Gish Gallop describes the struggles of evolution proponents to respond effectively to Dr. Gish in live debates - as noted by evolutionist Richard Trott (click link) at Talk Origins:

Evolutionist Richard Trott advising and warning peers of Duane Gish’s ‘extraordinary’ debate success writes:

The debate was a typical example of Gish's ability to control the terms of the debate and make outrageous statements of "fact" seem perfectly reasonable to a sympathetic audience. Gish has debated enough (far over 300 times) to know what to expect from a scientist unfamiliar with him, and his presentation was expectedly formulaic and extraordinarily successful.
(bold emphasis mine — please read further before commenting)

With this type of ‘extraordinarily successful’ debates by Dr. Gish (as assessed by an evolution believer), a large throng of observers in the hundreds of live debate audiences likely concluded Dr. Gish’s debates were a ‘Galloping Gash’ cutting through evolution mish-mash of inferred mechanisms transforming iterative progeny of the sort — worms to women.

However, the topic of this thread is not live debates with Dr. Gish or anyone else.
Further references to live debates by Dr. Gish or ‘Gish Gallops’ should be taken to another thread.
Those who wish to decline a live debate of evolution with Dr. Gish (or any other scientist) should start another thread topic and evade that type of commitment there.

In contrast to a live debate format, a publishable written debate concerning all the science required for neo-Darwin theory against the creation perspective will be even more challenging for neo-Darwin believers.

Terms will be defined.
The debate will involve the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science.
Evidence must be presented, acknowledged, and addressed. IF there is no evidence for creation as many here repeatedly state, then this should be a breeze, a TKO (Technical Knock-Out). However, with no qualified evolution team in the ring, the creation perspective remains standing and retains broad support by default as measured by the Gallup Poll referenced earlier by Bluegenes.
Known laws of science (similar to those in this thread for which highly educated science guys have struggled comprehending) will be applied and leveraged for/against proposed mechanisms. The neo-Darwin team should include folks with actual working knowledge of scientific laws and principles to avoid basic errors such as we’ve experienced (click link) here.
Plenty of time will be allowed for written points and counter-points. Bare assertions like JAC-RATTs (defined for Jar at the bottom of Message 170 (click link)) without evidence or physically valid mechanisms will be insufficient and ineffective.
Responses will be in plain print for all to see and learn from that point on.
There will be no ‘galloping’ excuses for poor performance by either neo-Darwin believers or creation believers, Vimesy. No excuses. None.

I understand your field is law, but you could still make a commitment to contribute any knowledge you have as well as help assemble a qualified neo-Darwin debate team for publication. There have been a few genuine contributions from your peers here, particularly Coyote. But most responses have been either false claims with condescending confidence concerning basic science or less noble forms of dissonance and evasion — such as your ignoble comments about bookies and derbies. Relevant thoughts are welcome if you have any.

Similar to this thread... interested observers of a publishable debate will find detailed responses by neo-Darwin skeptics nailing every issue to the wall for all to see.
This may include sloppy assumptions or errors in basic science as we’ve seen in this thread strangely no admissions of errors or corrections of errors by folks here.
Concerning errors in this thread, we have only silence only persistent dissonant silence on documented errors in basic science.
A little humility is normal and could add credibility among neo-Darwin believers in this thread discussion.

In keeping with the topic in the opening post of this thread Vimesy you neglected to respond to the request for firm commitments to a professional written publishable debate.

Please select any area of expertise near the top of this message for which you are confident and list your name to represent neo-Darwin theory in a written publishable debate. If you are not qualified for any discipline in science, you could help find someone who is qualified to join you.

Or share with us your reason for declining this invitation, Vimesy, if you don’t mind.

You should resist petty irrelevant responses that get you suspended.

Subbie in Message 176 resorts to imaginary off-topic ‘Time Cubes’ (again) rather than addressing the many issues and requests directed to him in Messages 167 and 168:

Dr. Adequate in Message 174 avoiding Message 172 and thereby dodging Exercise #3 writes:

All that crazy shit makes my eyes hurt. If anyone can be bothered to read it, please let me know if he said anything interesting.

Subbie avoiding Messages 167 and 168 while demonstrating the ‘Subbie Side-Step’ in Message 176 writes:

I'm no expert, but I suppose I'd give him 0.5 Time Cubes, maybe 0.6.

Some more levity for you Subbie from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly:
You see in this world there’s two kinds of people my friend, those with loaded guns, and those who dig (click link for video clip).

OK You can put down that shovel now and stop digging in this thread Subbie.

When you’re not wishing someone to be banned (click link) for imaginary forum violations, you’re so persistently off topic and irrelevant that all we see are muffled posts as you fling dirt over your head from a deep hole.

I understand that invitations to stand and deliver in this thread are apparently difficult - but irrelevant off-topic chat only diminishes you and the quality of EvC Forum.

Well managed debate sites don’t tolerate repeated diversions such as yours in a topical forum.
Carefully choreographed ‘Subbie Side-Steps’ about Time Cubes only highlight your inability to address invitations for firm commitment to a publishable debate of neo-Darwin theory.

If moderators care to improve the quality of EvC Forum, there have been many missed opportunities in this thread.
However, the multitude of off-topic diversions, dispersions, and charades by neo-Darwin believers here serve to illustrate lack of conviction or confidence (to put it kindly) in the zealous judgments upon others that motivated Message 1 (click link) for this invitation to debate on a professional stage for publication.

Your shallow responses and unwillingness to address these invitations for publishable debate of the science, Subbie, belie your sheltered EvC Forum navel-gazing (click link).

Interested observers will note that you are unwilling to demonstrate the integrity to clarify your fit of emotion in Message 143.
You have demonstrated no ability to clarify your own words as requested in Message 167 or answer any of the ‘Level of Confidence’ questions in Message 168 (formatted simply for you).

You should honestly answer the tough questions in Message 140 instead of wishing to ban someone because the ‘format’ didn’t please you.

In the interest of quality, there’s no rush in this thread. You could still make a thoughtful effort to honestly clarify your foul emotion in Message 143. Either clarification or retraction of Message 143 is appropriate in a professional setting.
It would be an indication of character and strength.

Even more appropriate is the reason why you will not make a firm commitment to assemble a qualified team for publication concerning evidence for evolution versus creation that could help educate millions of evolution skeptics. This would require confidence in your ability to present and defend evidence for neo-Darwin beliefs in a professional written debate where your impertinent comments would be properly moderated.

Here’s yet another chance for you to ‘pony up’ as you’ve generously lectured (click link) folks to do in another thread.
If you cannot debate the scientific evidence in a publishable venue for the potential edification of millions of people, it’s OK But you should own your position (click link) on ‘The inevitability of evolution’ (of the sort worms to women) and share with us publicly your reason for declining this invitation Subbie.

If you again decline to answer the questions, your request in Message 1 of your thread seeking Facebook help is a more profitable endeavor for your time (and ours):

Subbie requesting help for his Facebook game writes:

So, for reasons that pass my understanding, I've become, not addicted, but enthralled with a silly new game on Facebook called "The Ville." For those not familiar, it's a Sim-style game.

The sticking point that I've run into is that there is a fair amount of stuff in the game that requires assistance from other players to complete. My wife is currently the only person I know on Facebook that plays this stupid thing, and lots of stuff needs more than one person to help.

If anyone is on Facebook, not playing the game, and wouldn't mind giving a couple minutes a day helping me out, I'd certainly appreciate that, too. You don't have to really play the game, just create a game account, then once a day or so, click to give me a hand with something. It doesn't require you to actually do anything to help, just indicate that you're willing to help.

If you are willing to assist, pm me your Facebook identity so I can friend you, or let me know and I'll pm you mine.

If you're looking for some fairly mindless diversion that's not badly done, I can't really say I recommend it, but it's kinda cute.

Concerning this invitation for professional publishable debate, you should stop digging and either get in or get out Subbie.
A couple of options are offered here:

You could refrain from chatting on this EvC Forum thread like it’s a Facebook account and firmly commit to assemble the best qualified publishable debate team for neo-Darwin theory (or explain your reason for declining), or
You could spend all your time on Facebook and create a new ‘Time Cube’ game where folks engage in a ‘mindless diversion’ and strive to improve your fantasy ‘Time Cube’ rating. With some community organizing, you could claim ‘Time Cubes’ somehow slow global warming and get free federal grant money. You could ‘spread the wealth’ of Time Cubes earned among Facebook participants in your new ‘Time Cube’ game - regardless of participant effort. Instead of ‘The Ville’, you could call it ‘Obamaville’ where everyone has a ‘fair shot’ accumulating Time Cubes. But then most folks would likely find a more profitable endeavor for their time and effort.

Either address the topic in this thread or waste your time elsewhere Subbie.
If you choose to spend your time on Facebook games, you could elevate both your mindless score on ‘The Ville’ and the quality of posts here.

Bluegenes in Message 178 repeats himself while declining to respond to anything at all in Message 123 directed to him:

Eye-Squared-R in Message 173 writes:

Your potential creationist opponent(s) are committed and available to begin the process whenever a qualified neo-Darwin debate team is assimilated and committed. But the first step is to gain firm commitments for the best possible neo-Darwin debate team that includes qualified evolutionists (Ph. D. in the natural or applied sciences for publishable credentials).

Bluegenes in Message 178 responding to Eye-Squared-R writes:

Will the creationist opponent(s) have a Ph.D. in supernaturalism? Will they be able to establish the existence of the mechanism by which they want to explain the origin of species? I ask because, if they cannot demonstrate the existence of one or more supernatural beings, the debate is won by naturalists. Physical processes are demonstrably real.

Your chosen philosophy apparently constrains your science and your beliefs regarding origin of life as well as origin of species.

Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator Bluegenes.
Science can, however, provide levels of confidence for inferred conclusions concerning life and the universe - independent from self-imposed philosophical constraints.

Properly understood physical mechanisms and evidence generally support only one of two philosophical inferences (there are other possibilities but these two are most commonly considered and are mutually exclusive):

A worm-type creature’s descendants randomly mutated enough successful iterations (without any intent or purpose) to become an intelligent beautiful princess with no need to kiss a frog to find a prince. Mankind then created the concept of God to meet some strangely evolved common need for understanding intent and purpose, or
God created mankind directly after his image as the crowning jewel of His creation with self-conscious reasoning skills and an innate drive toward understanding intent and purpose, while endowing each person with a free will to acknowledge or deny.

Some folks determine to reject evidence outside the flimsy walls of their dimly lit narrow temporal view.
Some may be adamant that either A or B above express truths that are self-evident but they may not understand everything they ‘know’ in biology, physics, geology, etc.

We often fail to recognize our own confirmation bias while doggedly binding our scientific inferences within our restricted philosophy — embracing only what seemingly reinforces our beliefs while failing to consider alternative explanations. This bias is common with individuals and cultures regarding both A and B above. Probing questions may be ignored and faulty mechanisms exclusively embraced as truth.

The professional written publishable debate proposed in this thread requires vulnerability of all participants to possible exposure of personal error.
Exposure of personal error can be painful but it is worthwhile as it promotes knowledge and understanding of truth.

An insightful book called The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn provides analysis of how real science progresses along with interesting historical perspectives where the vast majority of ‘experts’ were in error.
Modulous cites Thomas Kuhn in Message 6 (click link) of another thread: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."--Max Planck (quoted in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn)

Your philosophical restrictions on the possibility of a creator ‘genre’ were addressed in detail in Message 123 (click link) pertaining to purely naturalistic philosophy of origins — see the section below the skull photos including this:

Eye-Squared-R responding in Message 123 to Bluegene’s philosophical constraints writes:

The simplest living cell is analogous to a factory (click link). Without belaboring details unnecessarily, factories have moving parts with meshed mechanical components, switches, analog sensors, motors, actuators, energy regulation, waste disposal, and other functions with control algorithms to process inputs to outputs, all contained in a functionally protective shell.

Intelligent and rational observers, unconstrained by personal bias or philosophy, may conclude it is not necessary to establish that an engineer exists as a genre — as you put it - before debating evidence whether a factory occurred via random processes or was designed and built with purpose.

Now, if you determine not to acknowledge the possibility that intelligent engineers exist as a genre, then you must be able to demonstrate how a fully functioning factory is assembled by random processes. Never mind a self-sustaining, self-reproducing factory.

In addition, any naturalistic (unguided) theoretical mechanism must reasonably explain newly functioning organs, features, or capabilities (e.g. brain, heart, kidney, liver, feathers, sonar, sexual reproduction, intercontinental navigation, metamorphosis from a caterpillar to a Monarch, etc.) resulting (at least in part) in progressively more advanced types of organisms within a population over time.

You’d be dealing with Ph. D. level debate restricted only to science, Bluegenes.
You’d be dealing with ‘demonstrably real’ physical processes in a publishable debate — for better or for worse — just as some of your highly regarded scientist peers have dramatically failed in their understanding of basic science (issues of their own choosing) in this thread.

Repeated philosophically false dichotomies offer no protection for your beliefs concerning science in a professional written debate, Bluegenes.
Are there debate topics in science that you’d rather not face in a publishable debate for potentially millions to see?
If so, tell us what those topics are and we could hopefully find someone qualified, willing, and able to assist you.

You introduced the Gallup Poll on views of human origins in Message 85 of this thread Bluegenes. The 2012 poll results indicate belief in special creation growing significantly from 2011, while the inference that humans genetically mutated from worm type creatures over time through random DNA transfer errors and natural selection - has declined to 15 percent.

As referenced in Message 89, this 15 percent (unguided evolution belief) is about equivalent to the number of Americans who believe they (or someone they know) have had at least one "close encounter" of the "First," "Second," or "Third" kind with extraterrestrial aliens. However, the evidence for personal encounters with extraterrestrial aliens is probably not worthy of publishable debate.

Meanwhile, the inference that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years is up by six percent (roughly 15-20 million additional Americans since 2011) to 46 percent.

These polls do not validate truth in science but they do indicate the massive opportunity you have to help educate these millions of Americans in a professional written publishable debate Americans you believe to be ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked.

Assuming you could substantiate your neo-Darwin beliefs with scientific evidence and valid mechanisms — there is huge opportunity.
Many millions of folks are interested. Who knows — a quality publication could be a ‘best seller’ on the NY Times list! Or guest appearances on MSNBC!

Now would be a particularly good time to answer the questions directed specifically to you in Message 123 Bluegenes.
Hopefully, you will not ignore them again.

You’ve been invited to firmly commit to a publishable debate team and validate your claims in a widely publicized venue.

Do you have a Ph. D. in natural or applied science Bluegenes?
If not, can you help find someone who does for a firm commitment to a publishable debate team?
Please don’t be shy. Bring it with confidence Bluegenes.

If you again decline the invitation, now would also be an appropriate time to demonstrate a measure of integrity and answer the question posed directly to you in Message 125 repeated here in gold font for your convenience:

If you are unwilling or unable to make a firm commitment, please state your reason for declining a written publishable debate (limited strictly to the scientific evidence), if you don’t mind.

Panda in Message 179 continues to avoid questions directed to him in Message 87 and especially Message 171.

Dr. Adequate in Message 174 declining to swing his ‘big bat of facts’ — because his eyes hurt - but requesting help from no one in particular writes:

All that crazy shit makes my eyes hurt.
If anyone can be bothered to read it, please let me know if he said anything interesting.

Panda responding to Dr. Adequate in Message 179 writes:

19,000 words of crazy shit.

Interested observers will note that’s 19,000 words for which neither you nor Dr. Adequate nor any of your neo-Darwin peers have an answer
No answer with any integrity at all.

Thus, we have a lack of commitment to a publishable debate of the science concerning evolution (random mutations and natural selection) versus creation.

Subbie called it ‘crap’ in Message 143.
Subbie could not respond meaningfully either but at least Subbie hasn’t succeeded in getting me banned yet.
Toilet stall graffiti will not win over many neo-Darwin skeptics Panda.

There’s a consistent pattern here Panda. Go up to the top right of this page, click ‘Thread Details’, and fetch all your contributions.
Then fetch the responses of each of your peers. You all emote with equal effectiveness.

A thorough review of responses should cause some introspection when judging the intelligence or character of others — unless you can justify judgments in a publishable debate as requested. Your refusal to respond to the invitations with integrity is not lost on interested observers.

My request to you in Message 87 (click link) still stands unanswered from almost two years ago. It’s repeated here for your convenience:
It would be most helpful, Panda, if you would divulge your position on the topic of the thread: FIRM commitments to present and defend evidence for neo-Darwinism in a professional publishable debate.

That old request is only 32 words Panda not thousands of words.
It should not be too difficult for you to respond with integrity.

You mentioned honesty in Message 82 Panda

Lacking any commitment from you to address the invitations in this thread, you could answer your own inquiry in Message 99 of another thread to another EvC Forum member:

Panda in Message 99 of another thread asking a question that could reasonably be addressed to himself in this thread - writes:

Ask yourself: what are you hiding from?

Little wonder fewer neo-Darwin skeptics spend their time here at EvC Forum.
It should be no mystery when reviewing your performance in this thread.
There are better options to folks for ‘understanding through discussion’.
Make an effort to respond with integrity to the questions in Message 87 and Message 171.

Otherwise, your comments belong in the Peanut Gallery thread
If you feel compelled to cuss and discuss while evading commitment to present and defend your beliefs in a widely publishable format, please do it there in the Peanut Gallery and spare this thread more of the stench of non-topic snark.

Larni in Message 180 and Message 183 with his nose in the air - but not much else.

Larni in Message 148 to Jar writes:

To some people science is a democracy.

Eye-Squared-R in Message 169 to Larni writes:

You could be more effective and gain credibility here by posting less irrelevant chat.
Either your retention is low or you’re intentionally misrepresenting this topic.
Review Message 89 where I stated:
Polls vary in methodology, sample size, margin of error, confidence level, etc., and are generally useful in politics and marketing. Polls are not historically reliable in determining truth in science.
The polls do indicate how many millions you could help educate with a professional publishable debate — if you could possibly make a firm commitment.

Larni in Message 180, while declining to answer all the requests in Message 169, writes:

What's that smell, is it.....irony?

Larni Continues in Message 183 offering more Off-Topic Team-Building Ego Chat with Dr. Adequate writes:

At first I was sure the smell was irony.
I rather it's actually the stench of defeat.

Sniffing smells are important to you Larni. We get that. You described the place you live as a total shit hole (click link).

One solution for your overactive sniffer is offered below:

Click Photo to Enlarge: Snuffing an Over-Active Sniffer

Any stench you smell is in your own house and of your own sexist behavior as detailed near the middle of Message 169 (click link) for which you had no meaningful response. Nothing with integrity.

Irony is someone like you with training in the ‘higher academic field’ (click link) of psychology intentionally referencing the female gender in a disparaging context. Your self-proclaimed superiority (click link) is apparently habitual along with uncivil discourse in response.
Irony is when the condescendingly confident and judgmental neo-Darwin believers (click link) here at EvC Forum are unwilling and unable to firmly commit and help assimilate the most qualified team possible to engage neo-Darwin skeptics and unbelievers concerning the science in a written publishable debate for the potential education of millions of folks.
Irony is that several evolutionist scientists in this thread have been confidently wrong concerning basic science — but unwilling to admit error publicly. Irony is gutteral condescending flame-outs when the flamethrower is in error.
Irony is your buddy who excuses himself from responding to the requests and requirements in Message 172 because he says his ‘eyes hurt’ — and then mocks that which his hurting eyes prevented him from reading as pathetic, contemptible, cowardly excuses!
That’s actually irony plus a rich dollop of comedy! If that doesn’t elicit a chuckle, then you have no sense of humor Larni.
Humor’s good.

The grand irony for you, Larni, is that you’re apparently unable or unwilling to commit to assembling a qualified team for publishable debate and unwilling to explain your reason.

And you’re still wasting our time with irrelevant macho snarky chat.
Now that’s a stinker!

Coragyps in Message 181 informs us that he refused to read and respond:

Coragyps in Message 181 writes:

Or, in short:
tl: dr

Abbreviated text messaging Coragyps? This must be a new low for EvC Forum.
Apparently, that’s all you have.

The text message ‘tl: dr’ is clarified as too long: didn’t read from one who apparently has read lengthy text books in college for a degree in science.
You’ve posted about 5,000 messages over nine years at EvC Forum but you can’t allow yourself to acknowledge or respond to five messages.
Shame that.

This is among the shortest posts ever with no substance at all
You demonstrate compulsion to excuse your philosophical and judgmental brethren who also struggle to assimilate a qualified and committed neo-Darwin debate team of scientists for publishers.

You’re bold silence and refusal to address the topic contributes evidence in support of Message 15 of RAZD’s Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs thread.

Rather than informing everyone about your self-imposed constraint to read and respond, a better course would have been no response silence.
You’re free to shelter your beliefs by restricting what you read, but you’ve missed many Golden Nuggets in this thread.

Unlike you Coragyps, interested observers are taking the time to read and comprehend.
The reason I know this is many folks have viewed the pictures (as tabulated by host stats).

Do you have a Ph. D. in physics or geology Coragyps?
Regardless, will you engage professionally and help assimilate a neo-Darwin team with publishable credentials including some real scientists who will firmly commit to debating the science for potentially millions of neo-Darwin skeptics to read and learn?

Go to the scientific disciplines near the top of this message.
Post your name in a category of science for publishable debate of evidence concerning evolution and creation. You could be the first!
Or explain why you cannot commit please.

Someone asked who the debate opposition would be
The creation perspective will be represented by a subset of those judged at EvC Forum to be ‘ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked’.

IF a confident qualified evolution team could be assembled to validate categorical judgments upon others in a professional publishable debate,
Then the names and the number of opponents should not matter.

The creation perspective is well represented, highly educated, qualified, capable, and committed.

It is I, however, who originated this thread and retain the patient determination to slog through this process knee-deep in wasteful posts from neo-Darwin believers who apparently prefer any response other than commitment to assimilate a qualified debate team for contractual engagement and publication.
The fundamental request is not that difficult

We wish to secure firm commitments for a qualified neo-Darwin team (including Ph. D. credentials in science) for debate of the science to advance toward contractual engagement with a publisher. The more the better!

IF you choose to respond
Then please do so with integrity and address the invitations for publishable debate.

All the Best,
Eye-Squared-R

4 online now:	AZPaul3, DrJones*, LamarkNewAge, PaulK
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,421 Year: 3,678/9,624 Month: 549/974 Week: 162/276 Day: 2/34 Hour: 2/0