This thread is ONLY for MrHambre and DarkStar to work out the terms of the debate. The eventual moderator can then help them formulate the opening post of the actual debate.
All others please refrain from posting.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-27-2004 06:44 PM
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.
I am still interested in this debate. My choice for moderator(s) is yet to be determined. Obviously no one who has shown an undue hostility towards me would be desired, so that would exclude both nosy and jar, but I do accept that you should choose the evo moderator, even if that means choosing nosy or jar, if that is your preference. I believe their should be two moderators, one evo and one id'er. The id'er I would have preferred is either TrueCreation or WillowTree but I haven't seen a recent post by either of them. I will continue to search for an acceptable candidate.
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 of our youth.-----DarkStar
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.
It doesn't matter who begins the debate. Either you or MrHambre can begin the debate in Proposed New Topics, and once it's approved it'll be promoted to The Great Debate. The first post should set the stage for the debate, defining terms, setting context and clearly indentifying what is being asserted so that the pro and con positions are well defined.
MrHambre writes: 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.
DarkStar inserts: For this debate to work you will have to accept the fluctuation of my work and study schedules. There may be times when I am absent for a month or more and there may be times when I am able to visit two or three days in a row, time which cannot be used exclusively for this debate.
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.
DarkStar inserts: My signature and avatar are not going anywhere. You need not agree with them, just accept them as being my personal choice, a right we all share here at EVC.
I have already proposed terms of debate: I want no name calling
DarkStar inserts: Agreed, but let's include no veiled insults such as the highlighted remarks in your first two paragraphs.
or quote mining;
DarkStar inserts: Define quote mining so that there is no mistake as to what you consider quote mining. I shall accept your definition so long as it does not prohibit the use of any and all quotes, whether by creatonist, ID'er, evolutionist, or Darwinist.
I agree with the definition of "macroevolution" offered in the glossary of this site;
DarkStar inserts: I will expound on this at a later date so as to leave no confusion of what macroevolution means to me. Currently, my schedule should allow some free time on either wednesday or thursday of next week.
I expect the subject to be the consistent application of scientific principles in the theory of common descent;
DarkStar inserts: You will need to expound on this as 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.
I think ten posts by each user is sufficient for a fair and vigorous debate;
DarkStar inserts: I agree.
I think there should be an evolutionist moderator as well as a creationist one.
DarkStar inserts: I agree.
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 of our youth.-----DarkStar
™ Version 4.0 Beta
