Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?”
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 151 of 196 (655779)
03-13-2012 1:54 PM


* bump *
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:12 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 172 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 05-27-2012 7:12 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 153 of 196 (663683)
05-26-2012 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 5:12 AM


Re: I will
OK, but that's not how the debate is going to go. That's not the format. The format is this: I present the evidence for evolution, you see if you can be sufficiently dull-witted to fail to understand it. Any responses you make are to be actual responses to my points, not a crazy Gish Gallop of any nonsense you can think of.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:12 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:45 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 157 by Chuck77, posted 05-26-2012 6:11 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 155 of 196 (663689)
05-26-2012 6:03 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 5:45 AM


Re: I will
I thought the debate was supposed to involve evidence "for/against Evolution"? Your format would only allow your side to be presented, correct?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 5:45 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Chuck77, posted 05-26-2012 6:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 161 of 196 (663700)
05-26-2012 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Chuck77
05-26-2012 6:11 AM


Re: I will
I'm interested in doing what I agreed to do; now I'm trying to find out if he's interested.
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.
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.
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.
Address his points already made. I especially like this:
How charmingly naive of you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Chuck77, posted 05-26-2012 6:11 AM Chuck77 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 162 of 196 (663702)
05-26-2012 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Chuck77
05-26-2012 6:22 AM


Re: I will
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?
Evading what?
Wow. This is amazing. you are serious?
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.
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.
As you obviously can't read my mind, perhaps you should stick to reading my posts.
Ahh. What's wrong Dr Adequate? Already misrepresenting the other sides argument?
Isn't that what creationists believe any more? I'm sure that was what the book of genesis said last time I looked.
It seems you know you got yourself into something you wish you hadn't.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Chuck77, posted 05-26-2012 6:22 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Chuck77, posted 05-26-2012 6:43 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 164 of 196 (663708)
05-26-2012 7:02 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Chuck77
05-26-2012 6:43 AM


Re: I will
It seems you are wrong again.
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.
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?
No, I don't, that's why I left Opposite World and moved back here.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Chuck77, posted 05-26-2012 6:43 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 6:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 166 of 196 (663793)
05-26-2012 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Jzyehoshua
05-26-2012 6:32 PM


Re: I will
Well, the objective is that an evolutionist should make the case for evolution, and a creationist should try to knock it down. Obviously this endeavor cannot be structured around random creationist errors. If this is too "complicated" for you, I shall wait for someone who wants to do it. In the meantime, I shall continue to cross swords with you on any subject you care to post on, in any thread on which it is on-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Jzyehoshua, posted 05-26-2012 6:32 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 174 of 196 (663871)
05-27-2012 7:45 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by vimesey, posted 05-27-2012 7:57 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 176 by subbie, posted 05-27-2012 11:54 AM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 179 by Panda, posted 05-27-2012 2:48 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 196 (663882)
05-27-2012 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Eye-Squared-R
05-27-2012 7:13 AM


Re: General Response: Integrity — Can anyone address the topic?
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).
If you have private questions or suggestions to advance the objective, they are welcome.
Question: who are these "potential creationist opponent(s)"? Are they able to speak for themselves? Why are you apparently uncertain as to whether they are singular or plural?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 05-27-2012 7:13 AM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 182 of 196 (672083)
09-02-2012 11:46 PM


* bump *
I'm still here. I guess Eye-Squared-R is still crawling away. It's been a long time since we mocked any of his pathetic crazy contemptible cowardly excuses, but I dare say in time he'll be along with some more.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 184 of 196 (672134)
09-03-2012 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Larni
09-03-2012 5:45 PM


It's the stench of ironic defeat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Larni, posted 09-03-2012 5:45 PM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-03-2012 7:29 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 186 of 196 (672141)
09-03-2012 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Adminnemooseus
09-03-2012 7:29 PM


Re: Stench of non-topic snark
The words: "Any Takers?" are right there in the topic line. Snark it may be, but it seems on-topic to discuss the answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-03-2012 7:29 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 193 of 196 (688229)
01-20-2013 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Eye-Squared-R
01-20-2013 4:48 PM


Re: No Qualified neo-Darwin Debate Team for Publication
I couldn't be bothered to read all through your latest slab of multicolored crazy, but I gather that you still can't find any real, non-imaginary, unfictitious creationists willing to participate, and that you are still desperately trying to duck out of your own challenge.
It must suck to be you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Eye-Squared-R, posted 01-20-2013 4:48 PM Eye-Squared-R has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2013 11:13 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(7)
Message 195 of 196 (688243)
01-21-2013 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by RAZD
01-20-2013 11:13 PM


Re: No Qualified neo-Darwin Debate Team for Publication
Copy and paste into text editor and all the crazy formating goes away.
Still leaves the repetitious ranting and denial.
I came up with an algorithm that removes that too.
The output looks like this:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2013 11:13 PM RAZD has seen this message but 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