Message 151 of 196 (655779) 03-13-2012 1:54 PM

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 152 of 196 (663679) 05-26-2012 5:12 AM

Reply to: Message 151 by Dr Adequate 03-13-2012 1:54 PM

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.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Message 153 of 196 (663683) 05-26-2012 5:31 AM

Reply to: Message 152 by Jzyehoshua 05-26-2012 5:12 AM

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Message 154 of 196 (663685) 05-26-2012 5:45 AM

Reply to: Message 153 by Dr Adequate 05-26-2012 5:31 AM

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I imagine you will bring up phylogenetic trees and vestigial organs at some point?

Message 155 of 196 (663689) 05-26-2012 6:03 AM

Reply to: Message 154 by Jzyehoshua 05-26-2012 5:45 AM

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?

Message 156 of 196 (663690) 05-26-2012 6:03 AM

Reply to: Message 152 by Jzyehoshua 05-26-2012 5:12 AM

(1) nothing you listed is new or original. What you have is a list of pratts (points refuted a thousand times).

(2) the topic of this thread is whether or not people would be interested in participating in a "professional debate" -- see Message 1 for clarification.

(3) If you think otherwise then please read and respond to Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 ... you could be the first creationist to get past the first couple of posts.

For someone with limited time you sure spammed a lot of threads and will have a lot of posts to respond to in return.

Enjoy.

Message 157 of 196 (663693) 05-26-2012 6:11 AM

Reply to: Message 153 by Dr Adequate 05-26-2012 5:31 AM

What's the matter Dr. Adequate? Giving up already? I think Jzyehoshua had laid out an excellent start to the debate here: Message 152

You can start your rebuttles already with the afore mentioned post by Jzyehoshua. No need to pull out the strawman of gish galloping, which no one is doing here.

Or, of course, you can take this to Great Debate. Just the two of you. Just you and him. You can handle that right? Or do you need the dogpiling tactics often used around here?

Come on now Dr Adequate. Address his points already made. I especially like this:

It looks like it's your move.

Message 158 of 196 (663694) 05-26-2012 6:11 AM

Reply to: Message 156 by RAZD 05-26-2012 6:03 AM

And where is this refutation? I know of no one else online who makes the points on recent transitional form controversies or sterility in interspeciary breeding. I think you are making a hasty generalization to avoid addressing what is a serious list of weaknesses in Evolutionary Theory.

I'll take a look, thanks.

You apparently missed the part where I said I have little time apart from weekends. This is a weekend, and I type over 80 WPM when I have time (which I do - for the moment). And I'm not new. I was here back in 2010 which is why I have 60+ posts. I've been on so many hundreds of forums before that I have trouble remembering the formatting distinctions between them, that's all.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : typo fix

Message 159 of 196 (663696) 05-26-2012 6:19 AM

Reply to: Message 158 by Jzyehoshua 05-26-2012 6:11 AM

One of the things that makes this such a good debate site is that it (tries to anyway) stick to a single topic in a thread, hence my reference to Message 1 previously.

If you want to debate the items you listed, you should start a new topic for each one.

Do that and I will be happy to participate in the refutations.

And please respond on that thread rather than here.

Then welcome back.

Enjoy.

Message 160 of 196 (663699) 05-26-2012 6:22 AM

Reply to: Message 155 by Dr Adequate 05-26-2012 6:03 AM

Boy oh boy Dr Adequate. I just guess I am disappointed is all. You are supposed to be one the best around here. This statement doesn't seem to fit that billing. Why are you evading already?

Wow. This is amazing. you are serious?

No, you have to be allowed to dictate the debate so you don't slip up against a worthy opponent. Which obviously, you sence. Hence the reservations you are so transparently displaying.

Ahh. What's wrong Dr Adequate? Already misrepresenting the other sides argument? I believe Jzyehoshua has already talked about the Flood. You know, the post you are ignoring?

Sure, as soon as you can indentify the original "common ancestors".

It seems you know you got yourself into something you wish you hadn't.

Message 161 of 196 (663700) 05-26-2012 6:23 AM

Reply to: Message 157 by Chuck77 05-26-2012 6:11 AM

As for his Gish Gallop, if he wants it answered, he should start a new thread for each theme in it, so's they're on topic, and I shall be perfectly happy to point out his mistakes.

In what way is that not a Gish Gallop? It's a totally athematic collection of creationist talking-points supported only by confident assertion. It is, by definition, a Gish Gallop.

How charmingly naive of you.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Message 162 of 196 (663702) 05-26-2012 6:35 AM

Reply to: Message 160 by Chuck77 05-26-2012 6:22 AM

Evading what?

Of course.

If I am to lay out the case for evolution, the shape of our discourse cannot be dictated by the mistakes that he wants to make in the order in which he wishes to make them. It can't go like: he makes a mistake about bananas, I tell the truth about bananas, he makes a mistake about aardvarks, I tell the truth about aardvarks ... 300 posts later, and I wouldn't even have got round to defining terms.

Now, I have kindly offered to let him do the same for creationism in a parallel debate, so I think that's perfectly fair to him. Well, perhaps not perfectly fair, since there's no evidence for creationism, but it's not my fault that he's chosen the losing end of the argument.

As you obviously can't read my mind, perhaps you should stick to reading my posts.

Isn't that what creationists believe any more? I'm sure that was what the book of genesis said last time I looked.

You still can't read minds.

Now, as Jywhatsisname 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?

Message 163 of 196 (663706) 05-26-2012 6:43 AM

Reply to: Message 162 by Dr Adequate 05-26-2012 6:35 AM

It seems you are wrong again. You're not starting this one out good Dr Adequate. It's beggining to look like the current debate you are having with Percy about Economics.

Are you sure you want to be on the losing end of so many debates all at the same time?

Message 164 of 196 (663708) 05-26-2012 7:02 AM

Reply to: Message 163 by Chuck77 05-26-2012 6:43 AM

Er, no. He apparently misunderstood the format. I explained it to him in message #155 in this thread. If he has any objections, he has yet to make them.

No, I don't, that's why I left Opposite World and moved back here.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Message 165 of 196 (663786) 05-26-2012 6:32 PM

Reply to: Message 164 by Dr Adequate 05-26-2012 7:02 AM

This is an awful lot more complicated than just simply having both sides present their points at one time and both responding. If new topics could just be posted this wouldn't be as much of an issue but I haven't been here in some time and imagine the topic approval could take a while.

Well, I presented my points and have yet to see any response to them, so I made my good faith attempt so far. I just don't have the time to go through so complicated a format though if it will be this much of a hassle. I did not recognize how complicated it would be to just start an actual debate on the subject.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.