Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating

John A. Davison
Tranquility Base
Peter Borger
Randman

I have to say that I've become more, uh, understanding of the approach of Jar and Dr Adequte and, for those who remember him, Scott Page. After a couple decades of trying to compose well-supported and evidenced arguments full of explanation, and of patiently repeating them whenever appropriate, I now feel like there are some creationists where this effort is wasted. For those who have debated Mike the Wiz and know how he seems to go through these manic periods every so often where you just can't have a normal discussion with him, debating some creationists is like that, and when they're in this state there's just no point in trying to engage them in rational discussion. So you can just ignore them, or you can taunt them, or, as in Scott Page's case, you can rage at them. But discussing with them when they're in that state is just a waste of time. They're all full of the holy spirit and of indignation at what they feel is atheistic science, and there's just no talking to them.The current crop of creationists are mostly of this type. We used to get a mix where for every Peter Borger there would be a Tranquility Base, for every Randman a TrueCreation, but not these days. Creationist organizations used to exert much energy promoting creationism as science to the public, especially the evangelical Christian public, and this resulted in many creationists coming here fully charged with detailed arguments garnered from ICR or CRS or DI, but it also caused too many losing court cases, so now this effort is going into more grass roots efforts that more subtly try to influence public education. This has brought about the situation we have here today, where the arrival of an informed creationist who is familiar with the topic and with the arguments from his side is a rare event.--Percy

More like the creationist dream team from hell. Let's allow 5 debaters, and then we could throw Barbara in there.--Percy

See Message 3.Dr Adequate does tend to get suspended a lot, though not recently. Many of his posts leave me with two thoughts: First, "<sigh> There he goes again."Second, "That sure was a clever response to yet another combination of chutzpah and ignorance."While I've probably become inured to the snark over the years, I do still find myself amazed at the confidence displayed by people discussing something they know very little about. We evolutionists feel, to borrow an old but appropriate metaphor, like we're shoveling sand into the ocean. There are new legions of the ignorant being trained every year, but there's a big difference between the current crop of creationists and those from the even just the recent past. The emphasis of creationist leadership on "teaching the controversy" seems to ignore all details of their actual positions on scientific matters, with the result that these days it is not uncommon for creationists to come here knowing they disagree with evolution but having little idea why. Creationists of the recent past used to come here citing the catechisms of the ICR or DI, but now they seem to be getting little guidance from these organizations and have to figure it out themselves as they go along. Even evolutionists who despise Henry Morris (founder of ICR) and Duane Gish (champion creationist debater) have to admire how thoroughly and ingeniously their arguments are constructed, but their example isn't being followed much any more.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Miller => Morris

And then there's the judgement part, where they accuse us of hating God and of making things up about the universe and life because we want to prove God doesn't exist so we can do whatever we feel like.Creationists do sincerely believe that science is out to destroy their religion, but forgotten today is that this controversy all began as an issue of science education that drove subsequent decades of effort to cast religious beliefs into the mold of science. The current creationist crop has little patience for trying to cast their beliefs into acceptable scientific frameworks the way that ICR, CRS and AIG did, and still do. Without shame or embarrassment or any apparent awareness they advance unscientific and even patently absurd and ridiculous ideas. We want creationists to come here and discuss the relevant issues, but what we mostly get is a kind of scientific preaching where in place of the evidenceless "God did this" and "God did that" we get the similarly evidenceless "The world is 6000 years old" and "There was a global flood 4300 years ago." The idea that one should have evidence standing behind what one believes merits little consideration, even bafflement.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

We're not talking about the frontiers of science. You guys can't even agree whether the Earth is 6000 years old or 4.56 billion years old, but you somehow know evolution is wrong. You guys don't know whether God created Adam and Eve and all the rest of life, or if instead an intelligent designer is constantly tweaking all species to cause change over time, but you somehow know evolution is wrong. You guys don't know whether there was a global flood 4350 years ago that wiped out almost all life, or whether there was just a big local flood in the Middle East sometime in the last 10 or 20 thousand years, or even whether there was ever any flood at all, but you somehow know evolution is wrong.We're talking about some of the most simple things to know, some of the easiest things to nail down, and you guys can't even reach agreement with each other about them. If a YEC can't convince an OEC, and vice versa, then how could either group ever hope to convince anyone in science.The reason you guys can't agree on anything is because you're all looking to revelation instead of the real world for answers. The reason scientists agree about so much is because they use reality as their guide. You guys should really give it a try some time.--Percy

The only thing with no legs at all is what you just said. Go to the science section in any library and you'll find oodles of books detailing the scientific consensus across the whole breadth of science. There couldn't possibly be widespread disagreement about the core of science because, like I said before, reality is their guide. Scientists understand the pointlessness of ignoring reality, creationists don't. That's why you're ignoring the reality of the broad scientific consensus right now. I grant that if your criteria is just to "find somebody" that you'll probably have no trouble doing that, but can you name any fundamental tenet of evolution that more than 1% of biologists question? Go ahead, try.If creationists were paying attention to reality instead of revelation then they would agree on things like the age of the Earth and a global flood and so forth, but they aren't and they don't.--Percy

What did I just say about the criteria of just "finding someone" who demurs? I said that you should have no trouble finding such a person, didn't I? So what do you do? You find one guy who demurs.But even worse, your example of someone questioning whether gravity is fundamental or emergent is incredibly esoteric and is definitely on the scientific frontier. Let me repeat something else I just said: we're not talking about the scientific frontiers. We're talking about the basics.So do you now understand that in a world of 6 billion people that "finding someone" who believes something weird means nothing? And do you understand that we're talking about the broad scientific consensus and not stuff on the scientific frontiers? Again, that's the scientific frontier. Can you think of any examples involving something basic, the kind of things that actually get discussed here at this forum? We're talking about the simple stuff that has been established for well over a century, like the great antiquity of the Earth and universe, the absence of evidence for a global flood 4500 years ago, and the relatedness of life through a history of common descent. If you guys can't even convince each other whether the Earth is old or young, how can you ever hope to convince anyone in science, especially when all your arguments trace back to a religious book instead of evidence from reality. You're on a roll coming up with poor examples, but at least you seem to recognize it in this case. This one should have ended up on the cutting room floor. Please try again. Can you name anything basic about evolution like common descent or descent with modification or natural selection or random mutation and variation that more than 1% of biologists question? The dichotomy I'm actually setting up is that if you base your thinking upon reality then you have an orders of magnitude better chance of figuring out what is actually going on than if you base your thinking on revelation. Remember science class in high school? Who had the better chance of getting the correct lab result, the guy who actually performed the experiment or the guy who sat in a corner reading a comic book?--Percy

You are seriously delusional.When you're ready to present the evidence you promised, the Did the Biblical Exodus ever happen? thread is still there awaiting your return.--Percy

Hi Slevesque,You seem to be confusing two different things. On the one hand there's the theory itself, and on the other there's the interpretation of evidence within the framework of that theory. You said you were in math and physics, I think, so try on this example.Take Haley's Comet. The laws of physics, specifically of gravitational attraction and the pressure of gases sublimating into space due to increasing proximity to the sun and probably other lesser effects, tell us where Haley's Comet is going and where it's been. If someone discovers evidence that changes what we think are the past or future paths of Haley's Comet (maybe they discover more mass is lost on near approaches than previously thought) it wouldn't have any effect whatsoever on the laws of physics.So now let's look at your chimp/bonobo/chimpanzee example.Descent with modification filtered by natural selection is the theory of evolution.Descent of man from a common ancestor of chimps, bonobos or orangutans is interpretation of evidence within the framework of the theory of evolution.If in the end it turns out that the evidence tells us that man is actually most closely related to orangutans than to chimps and bonobos then it would have no impact whatsoever on the theory of evolution, just as discovering that the path of Haley's Comet wasn't what we originally thought wouldn't change the laws of physics.As someone else already pointed out, chimps and bonobos are very closely related species, sister species I think they called them. Just as you are equally related to all your sisters, so are humans equally related to chimps and bonobos. There is no disagreement within science about our degree of relatedness to them, because it is clear it is the same.Concerning whether we're more closely related to orangutans than to chimps and bonobos, this is a distinctly minority view within anthropology. You're talking, of course, of Jeffrey H. Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, and when he was here he lasted all of two posts, you can start reading at Message 38 in the Dr. Schwartz' "MIssing Links" thread.And of course let me repeat once again, nothing in any of this has any bearing on the theory of evolution. If you want to say there is a lot of debate about the specifics of human descent then I don't think anyone would argue with you, but unless we discover humans are actually descended from canaries it isn't going to affect evolution. And I said this where?What I said was (and I quote), "If you base your thinking upon reality then you have an orders of magnitude better chance of figuring out what is actually going on than if you base your thinking on revelation."No one on this side of the fence is moving any goalposts.Let me address this, just to drive the point home: Ask yourself, and then tell us your answer, what would be the impact on the theory of evolution if we discover precisely who the last common ancestor was, and how the Neandertals went extinct?Don't confuse theory with interpretation of evidence within a theoretical framework.--Percy

No, what I said was that creationists don't even agree on the basics, like the age of the Earth, and that is because they don't agree on any theory within whose framework they can interpret the evidence. In the difference of opinion between YEC's and OEC's you can put almost all the blame on YEC's because they simply reject without reason any science that conflicts with their literal Biblical interpretations, which means they reject almost all of science.So when anthropologists disagree about chimps and orangutans, everyone's still interpreting the evidence within the same theoretical framework of evolution.But when YEC's disagree with OEC's about the age of the Earth, the YEC's don't even have a theoretical framework within which to interpret the evidence. For YEC's the science is only okay if it doesn't conflict with their literal interpretation of the Bible, and that's a religious philosophy, not a scientific theory.Just to be clear about one other thing, a creationist is someone who holds beliefs about the real world that are based upon his religious beliefs rather than evidence.So the difference is vast between creationism and science. Creationist belief is all over the map, while science has huge swathes of natural phenomena about which there is broad concensus.--Percy

I've been corrected so many times I couldn't possibly count. I'm not going to look up examples for you, but pretty much any time Wounded King replies to me he's correcting me on one thing or another.--Percy

I think what you mean to say is that those who argue positions that lack evidence won't fare very well.--Percy

Hi Slevesque,Since you haven't replied yet I thought I'd respond again with a more clear explanation.Anthropologists disagree about interpretations of evidence within the same theoretical framework.Creationists disagree about interpretations of evidence independent of any discernible theoretical framework because Biblical inerrancy has primacy. They don't care what solution is proposed as long as it doesn't conflict with the Bible. They don't care whether it agrees with the actual evidence. Building theoretical models to explain bodies of evidence is not what they do. Proposing hypotheses and then validating them with evidence does not interest them. Validating their belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible is what is most important to them.With no agreed upon theoretical framework it is no wonder that creationists are all over the map and can never come to one another's defense.--Percy

It isn't my issue with creationism, it's yours, or rather, it's the most significant problem faced by creationism: there's no theoretical framework. That you have a cacophony of opinion preventing creationist cooperation in threads is just a side effect. The real issue is that if you want to replace evolution then you have to interpret the available evidence within some theoretical framework. Unfortunately there's no discernible scientific framework that is shared by creationists.Not only do creationists have no scientific framework, there's not even a creationist consensus around any kind of framework. Is the Bible absolutely literally inerrant? Mostly literally inerrant? Somewhat literally inerrant? Not literally inerrant, but God created species, not evolution? Is God Christian? Moslem? Hindu? Semitic? Buddhist?Creationists have one unifying principle: evolution is wrong. They disagree about everything else. They disagree about how it is wrong (they rarely understand how evolution even works), and they disagree about where the rest of science is wrong, and when they agree about that they disagree about how it is wrong.So don't say it's my issue with creationism, because it's not. It's a problem that creationists have cooked up for themselves all by themselves. If you want to claim to have scientific answers then you'd better do some science, but so far all creationists do at best is attempt to reconcile evidence with revelation.Good luck with your final.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.