|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Professional Debate: Scientific Evidence for/against Evolution… “Any Takers?” | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
* 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
* 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 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It's the stench of ironic defeat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The words: "Any Takers?" are right there in the topic line. Snark it may be, but it seems on-topic to discuss the answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024