Great Debaters

Just so you know it didn't go wasted.

Buz banned from science, period, including ID stuff. True creationist debate on science a no-no here at EvC (Evolution vs Creation. ) Pseudo-creationist stuff ok.

Buz, the reason for this is that for you, scripture et al. is the highest form of knowledge.That is not the case in science. Science demands real evidence, and most importantly, evidence that can be tested by others.(See tagline...)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

That doesn't seem right! Maybe we can rectify it.To put you on the spot (ignore if you like) - Who would you like to Great Debate and on what topic? Potentially a classic. The escalating levels of sarcasm alone would be worth the entry fee.

Coyote, I've come to Bolderdash's insinuation that the reason is that sometimes the quickest and easiest way for the powers that be here at EvC town to silence the most effective great debaters of the creationist constituency has been to either stalk, harass and ban them from where they do the most damage to the majority secularist constituency or just flat out permanently ban them.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Buz, when one is debating a topic in science it is appropriate to bring scientific evidence and to use scientific methods.When you do religious apologetics you can use whatever methods and evidence they allow.It is best not to confuse the two.Belief does not constitute scientific evidence. (Hey, that would be a good tagline!).One of the main problems in the science forums is creationists who substitute belief (and use pseudo science to support it) for real science. When the problems are explained, with supporting evidence, said creationists tend to fall back on belief and ignore the empirical evidence.This leads to a serious disconnect.You can preach and proselytize all you want in the religious forums, but you have to realize that neither constitutes scientific evidence. When you or other creationists debate science you really do have to follow the rules of science, and to bring empirical evidence.Otherwise you end up as religion has, with some 40,000 different worldwide religions and close to that many sects, branches, and subdivisions of Christianity alone. The reason for that is religions rely on belief, revelation, scripture and individual interpretation rather than empirical evidence and established rules for deciding which, of various competing claims, is likely to be wrong.Or, as Heinlein noted, "Belief gets in the way of learning."

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Perhaps it might also be interesting to see our esteemed members take a totally opposite view and debate that view against a similarily opposite view..For example, let's say Straggler takes the YEC Creationist ID viewpoint and Buzsaw takes the Evolutionary/ordinary random mutation viewpoint.I wouldn't expect this sort of an experiment to last very long, but there might be an entertaining exchange for those of us watching from the peanut gallery.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Can you say "1000 posts and nothing accomplished"...? Lol I'd rather watch two old ladies argue a over game of Bridge! No offense to either dude but, we need some action...some fire in a great debate. It's no fun if the debate ends in a handshake and a mutual respect of one another. Gross. Here are my votes:

quote:

---

Rrhain vs Catholic Sci on whether or not the puffy shirt/peter pan look is gay.

​

Straggler vs RAZD in a staring match via Skype. Best 3 of 5

​

Jar vs Ringo - any topic - but all posts must be answered in 6 words or less.

​

Taz vs Oni in a who can pretend to love the gays the most debate.

​

Buzsaw vs Coyote to become the next Fox News pundit - (the topic is The Left, how wrong are they?)

​

Dr. A vs Stephen Colbert in a punchline match to the death.

​

Crashfrog vs Rahvin in a who knows the most about everything debate.

​

ICANT vs ICANT on which one is the smartest. Est posts: 3,657. Result: inconclusive.

​

Moose vs Larni on something cat related that they disagree on. No one will follow this debate.

​

Percy vs Dennis Markuze for ownership of EvC.

​

Straggler vs Oni in an old school B-Boy break dancing challenge. The winner is the one who gets up in the morning with the least amount of pain.

---

- Oni

Sounds like a summary of my EvC participation. Have you ever seen two old ladies fight over a game of bridge? It is not for the faint hearted. True. True. Point well made. Point taken. How about Oni vs Petrophysics on morality and lifestyle choices? Webcams at the ready.........And BRRREEEAAAKKKK(**Straggler starts popping and bopping to the beat**)

It's an interesting idea. You could argue that a really good debater should be able to argue both sides of anything. When Percy was looking for a creationist partner for (now suspended member) Faith I offered to try and take the creationist side with her as a sort of intellectual challenge. Percy considered it but ultimately wasn't convinced it was viable. On reflection I think he was right. The danger is that you just present a caricature of the position you don't really hold.

lol. . .which would be different for you how? You already have argued against caricatures of arguments made by others rather than address the actual arguments, so wouldn't that just complete the process?Curiously, we commonly tell creationist noobs to study some biology if they are going to argue against evolution -- to KNOW the information they are criticizing.Of course it would help to have an open mind to take an opposite position.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

As I had always been taught about debating, you are supposed to be able to argue either side of any issue. It's all about the art of argumentation and not about the issues themselves.Having a YEC argue for evolution and an "evolutionist" argue the YEC side would be interesting. I would anticipate that the YEC's presentation will be filled with gross misinformation and warped misunderstanding of what he's arguing for, based on his already existing warped misunderstanding of evolution and science. I anticipate that the "evolutionist's" YEC presentation will be filled with lies and deception and thus be indistinguishable from a real YEC's presentation of the same.One mistake that I anticipate an evolutionist playing YEC would make would be to take the claims too seriously, in which case he may try to analyze them and present a too lucid and detailed account of the claims. Even worse, he may be more likely to allow himself to be drawn into discussing and defending the claims, something that real creationists know to avoid at all costs.

Yeah - In a competetive debate you simply get given the position you are going to argue and have to make the case whether you agree with it or not. there might well be merit in Xongsmith's suggestion. I am not sure but willing to find out. It would be interesting whether it works or not.Any suggestions as to who or what would make a good "reverse posittion" Great Debate?

Wouldn't a good evo candidate be a former fundie?

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square