Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,584 Year: 4,841/9,624 Month: 189/427 Week: 102/85 Day: 7/2 Hour: 1/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Great Debate Challenge to DarkStar
Member (Idle past 1472 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003

Message 1 of 15 (156587)
11-06-2004 7:29 AM

Is Macroevolution a Myth?
In the "Thread Reopen Requests" Topic, I made this challenge to DarkStar:
MrHambre writes:
Welcome back. If you're interested in renewing the subject of "Macroevolution is a Myth," I'd like to participate in a Great Debate with you. This would be a head-to-head debate where we would argue the scientific nature of macroevolution. Obviously you'd be pointing out (as you have previously) the non-existence of evidence for macroevolutionary transitions and the unscientific nature of macroevolution.
Let me know what you think. I consider it a good opportunity for you to establish your perspective.
Evidently declining to enter into a formal debate, but still wanting to push his points as proven, DarkStar responded,
DarkStar writes:
While on the surface this may seem as though it would be a good idea, the reality is that evo's must rely on a limited number of fossils to prop up their belief in macroevolution. They love to refer to these fossils as transitionals but, truth be told, these are hollow arguments when one considers the vast number of fossils that would have to be present, both before and after said transitional, in order to show any semblance of true macroevolutionary evidence.
Creo's will use these same fossils, and the enormous lack of continual transitionals both before and after, to support their beliefs in creation while claiming that said fossils merely depict species which have long since gone extinct.
While the discussion of the myth of macroevolution is an interesting topic, the reality is that it is a fruitless endeavor once one attempts to drag this myth into the realm of science. We all know that there is no more scientific evidence to support macroevolution than there is to support creation, perhaps even less.
True, some have chosen to view the fossils that are available as being strong scientific evidence supporting the concept of macroevolution but they do so on the basis of their own personal bias and beliefs rather than on anything even remotely close to being true science fact.
Hell, one could even use fossils as scientific evidence that ancient men were skilled engravers who found ways to preserve their engravings in the sedimentary layers of rock. However, choosing that position would be about as equally unscientific as the position of those who claim these fossils are transitional, and are thereby scientific evidence of macroevolution.
Any discussion regarding the myth of macroevolution would have to be held in a forum designed strictly for the discussion of myths, recognizing that personal opinion is not, and never should be referred to as, science.
If you would like to discuss the myth of macroevolution, please open a new topic about myths and I would be happy to inject myself in the discussion. Having said that, be forewarned, I have limited time to play on the computer and days, even weeks could pass before I am able to post or reply.
I made my challenge in good faith, with the intent of forging a serious discussion on the subject. DarkStar, after all, is the poster with the following as his signature:
The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story, nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's (sic) of our youth.-----DarkStar
The points that he brings up in this post are open to debate, but apparently DarkStar wants them to be accepted as fact. Is it true that "We all know that there is no more scientific evidence to support macroevolution than there is to support creation, perhaps even less", or is this merely DarkStar's personal opinion?
If he is afraid to subject his opinion to scrutiny, perhaps that's a sign that he realizes its potential shortcomings. If he is secure in his knowledge, and understands the scientific basis for his view, then I'm unsure as to the source of his reluctance to debate me on the subject.
The challenge still stands.
Esteban Hambre

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by DarkStar, posted 11-18-2004 10:50 PM MrHambre has not replied

Member (Idle past 1472 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003

Message 12 of 15 (161426)
11-19-2004 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by DarkStar
11-19-2004 1:48 AM

Re: Some Peoples Kids!
I started this thread to discuss the possibility of our engaging in a one-on-one debate concerning your assertion that macroevolution is a myth. I think it would be best if the debate took that form, instead of the hit-and-run posting you currently favor. The fact that you decline to enter into a moderated debate concerning your claim (while you continue to make the assertion as if you consider it self-evident) speaks volumes about your confidence in your own argument.
Since denying evidence, misrepresenting scientific methodology, and puerile name-calling seem to constitute your debating skills, I’m not surprised that a structured debate doesn’t appeal to you.
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by DarkStar, posted 11-19-2004 1:48 AM DarkStar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by sidelined, posted 11-19-2004 7:43 AM MrHambre has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024