EvC Forum: Need Help! Creationist/Evolution debate

Hello again Sun, I'll see if I can answer this guy as if I were debating him, see if that helps

Creo:

Sun before we pursue he said, she said, they said we need to establish a foundation from which agreeable thought proceeds. There is no need for branches when there is no trunk. So, I'll ask you again, will you bring yourself to agree that the theory of evolution is as much, or maybe even moreso founded upon faith in as of yet unproven conjection as it is upon emperical scientific evidences.

No I won't, and this is exactly what this debate is about, so if I were to admit it does, it would be over. However since there's literally NOTHING that points to this being true, I'm going to have to say "no" to this.

I am not stating anything that Darwinists of the highest order don't already freely admit, and I can site many more references to the effect.

Yes you are, and no you can't. By the way, quote mining is NOT evidence. One more point, what are "Darwinists"?

If you don't agree with that statement then there won't be much if any intellectual integrity to build a fruitful discussion upon.

The statement is WHY we are having this debate, me saying you are right on it would END the debate, but I DON'T agree with you, so, you'll have to try harder to convince me.

I don't wish to argue for the sake of arguing.

Neither do I, I want to discuss the points you bring up for your statements to show you where you are wrong, so you can learn from it.

Also we will need to set some ground rules such as producing not just long held passionate beliefs but their notated research and sources. Precedence may work in jurisprudence it has no recourse in science.

I agree, we should bring up only peer reviewed scientific evidence as back up for our arguments. (this one will require some work on your part)

Sun:

see? He's saying there's no point in even debating unless I admit he's right before we even begin!

Yes, just say that to him, see how he wiggles out of that one.

I think you did rather well in your replies to him.

creo:

That's funny in the introduction to a 1971 edition of The Origin of the Species by noted Brittish biologist L. Harrison Matthews: He wrote:

quote:
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither up to the present, has been able to prove."

Like I said before, quote mining is NOT evidence.

How do you reconcile your lack of scientific credentials to rival such a statement from your own 'camp' with credentials?

By stating that quote mining is not evidence. And pointing out that the very first sentence is : "The FACT of evolution is the backbone of biology"

No? this is just one obscure organization's scientific 'Dissent from Darwinism's' list. The signers are from around the world. And it grows daily. It does mean something.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php

point to projext steve: http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18

In case you don't know what it is here's the wiki for it:Project Steve - Wikipedia

What planet do you live on? I never said that.

No, you are saying MOST are liars, the one's that actually agree with evolution.

Malarky - produce it.

This will require some work from you, but it's not hard. Also, point out that he has NOT produced ANY evidence.

Do not produce reams of extrapolated 'theory'. There is fantastic stories aplenty of what they believe happened but empirical evidences are thin if non-existent. You stated " In science, the ultimate authority is the evidence itself. " I would add to that the lack there of also. This is the crisis of evolution's theory.

He's lying, there's mountains of evidence.

Francis Collins, Junk DNA, God, and Evolution | Discovery Institute They are totally different in their methodology.

They don't, they say they do, but they don't. As a challenge, name ONE peer reviewed scientific article that came from and ID proponent that deals with ID.

Finally, I agree. Let's start again with your disingenuous proclamation "the theory of evolution is not founded upon faith by any means. " You will, first and foremost, have to be intellectually honest in conferring the admitions of your own Darwinist apologists no matter how unsettling it may be.

That proclamation is NOT disingenuous, please show how it is.

That's it, run and take refuge from the facts.

Since you have provided NO facts, I've got nothing to run from.

And for the record, the quotes were not from "discovery" if that has any bearing.

No, quote mining's still not science.

The facts are the facts no matter who publishes them.

Correct, too bad NO ID proponent has EVER produced even ONE scientific peer reviewed article.

That should be a simple enough concept even for . . . a "descendent of an ape".

Man did not evolve from apes.

I guess if "unapproved" sources published 2+2=4 then in your twisted logic it would be a totally erroneous unacceptable mathematical statement.

No, not if they were shown correct by other independent sources. By the way, biology does not work like math, where we agree on something beforehand, and then proceed to use that to find out other things. In other sciences, we look at what the evidence shows, and then draw our conclusions based on that evidence.

I think those who have tuned in have heard enough to know your defense that evolution is in no way in doubt among the scientific community, and that it doesn't involve a leap and committment of faith, is dissingenous at best and at its worst, deliberate obfuscation.

No it ISN'T. Stop asserting it is, and show some evidence for it.

Maybe we will live to discuss the facts another time.

I'm always ready to debate FACTS, not bare assertions.

Although, it won't be much longer before this discussion will be moot as ID enters the class rooms and stimulates vibrant scientific discussions as to the exquisite mind behind the design theory of creation and how we can study, in part, the mind of the grand "Designer".

I hope that day never comes, further, could you please point me to where i can find this "design theory"?

Sun:

Are creationists always this impossible!? Seriously! How can he not hear his own arguments?

No, not always, but often they are.

Good luck with this guy. Just keep pointing out his mistakes, and maybe, just maybe, he'll learn something, but I doubt it.

I hunt for the truth

2 online now:	PaulK, Tangle
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0