I’m eager to have a Great Debate with DarkStar, moderated by Percy or an admin of his choosing.
DarkStar has asserted here that We all know that there is no more scientific evidence to support macroevolution than there is to support creation, perhaps even less. I want to examine that claim and its implications.
I don’t want to have this debate descend into name-calling and quote-mining. I’d be glad to support my assertions with relevant citations. However, the discussion needs to remain focused on the issue of macroevolution’s basis in responsible scientific methodology.
regards, Esteban Hambre
Edited to add link and quote
This message has been edited by MrHambre, 11-28-2004 03:28 PM
I sent DarkStar an e-mail on 11-29 to link him to this page, so he could discuss his terms for the Great Debate. I notice that he's been here and posted a couple of messages since then, but hasn't given any indication of continued interest in the debate.
I'd be glad to post the first message in the Great Debate, but I'd rather DarkStar let me know he's still up for the debate, he agrees to certain ground rules, and that he's satisfied with a particular definition of macroevolution. In the absence of any feedback from him, I don't want to jump the gun and later be accused of involving him in a debate in whose terms he had no say.
I'm going with the general definition of macroevolution offered in the EvC glossary of terms:
quote:Evolution of taxa higher than the species level (for example, genera, families, orders, classes), commonly entailing major morphological changes.
Basically, the notion of common ancestry of all life on Earth, the concept of the Tree of Life envisioned by Darwin.
I'd like to see ten posts by each user, just to keep the debate from dragging on and to discourage pot-shot posting. I have no problem with Percy's suggestion of AdminJazzLover, and I'd like an evolutionist admin as a moderator too. I think Ned would be a good choice, but he may be more interested in the "Peanut Gallery" action.
I'm looking forward to getting the debate underway.
Today marks one month since I challenged DarkStar to a debate concerning the scientific basis of macroevolution. Though he claims to be interested in the debate, he hasn't mentioned any terms except the choice of moderators. On even this matter he hasn't been able to make a decision.
I only bring this issue up repeatedly because DarkStar continues to use the signature explicitly referring to the "myth of macroevolution" not once but twice. His current avatar refers to evolution as a "fairy tale for grownups." Evidently, for someone so certain of the validity of his claim, he is reluctant to defend it in a public forum.
I have already proposed terms of debate: I want no name calling or quote mining; I agree with the definition of "macroevolution" offered in the glossary of this site; I expect the subject to be the consistent application of scientific principles in the theory of common descent; I think ten posts by each user is sufficient for a fair and vigorous debate; I think there should be an evolutionist moderator as well as a creationist one.
I'm ready to make the first move. If DarkStar would rather submit the first post, that's fine. However, it's starting to look like he's not confident enough in his claim that macroevolution is an unscientific myth to defend it in a debate. Methinks with his avatar and signature DarkStar doth protest too much.
I stand by my statements in post #12 of this thread. You seem surprisingly reluctant to take part in this debate, even though you continue to claim that scientific evidence for macroevolution is nonexistent and that evolution is a fairy tale. If you were really confident of your case and willing to debate, you would have long since started the thread in "Proposed New Topics" and we'd probably be done by now. As it is, you've posted dozens of messages here at EvC since I first challenged you, but you still say you need to define "macroevolution" appropriately.
If you were here with the intent of engaging in reasonable debate, I'm not sure why it is taking you so long to respond to my challenge. Like I said, you've posted dozens of messages since the beginning of November, so I find it difficult to believe your claim of not having the time to present your case. However, if you're only here to bait your evolutionist enemies with inflammatory rhetoric, your behavior makes much more sense.
The reason I brought up quote mining is because your tactics have always seemed to hinge on rhetorical debate and never on the methodology that serves as the foundation for scientific endeavor. Offering selected quotes to support a specific claim is one thing, but quite different than spewing forth isolated phrases from scientists and writers intended to produce a false impression. Using quotes from evolutionists to undermine evolutionary theory is particularly laughable. The debate I envision is not one that will benefit from your library of sound-bites.
quote:I view a fair number of areas regarding the theory of evolution to be unscientific due to the inability to falsify and/or test using purely scientific means. I shall attempt to provide you with adequate examples and allow you to either agree or attempt to correct any perceived error in my thought process. Obviously, the final analysis of the correctness of my thought process is mine alone.
This is what we're supposed to be debating, DarkStar. Why do you keep ranting about the topic as if I should accept your claims when I'm trying to engage you in an examination of that very issue? As far as the correctness of your thought process concerning the scientific nature of evolutionary theory, the final analysis in fact is not yours alone. Your opinion of the history and development of either life on Earth or the scientific methodology we use to study it is irrelevant. Your critique of evolution should be based on the true nature of scientific inquiry, regardless of what you think it should be.