Upside Down Day Comment Thread

This thread is intended as a parallel thread for commenting on the "Upside Down Day" thread.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

With all due respect, Percy, maybe we should let PaulK take a crack at this. I don't think your creationist OP is your best effort. All evos are going to hell, eh?I realize you perhaps were just trying to be funny, but honestly, I would prefer to debate someone, maybe not you nor PaulK, that is really going to put their best foot forward, not your best foot imitating what you think creationists do, but honestly argue creationism as forcefully as you can.If you cannot do that, then let someone else post.I am not interested in starting off in response to your post, that is not reflective of your best thinking, but is more of a parody.This message has been edited by randman, 08-23-2005 10:36 AMThis message has been edited by randman, 08-23-2005 10:37 AM

I think you are seeing why the upside down thread is unlikely to work.Although I am against the Iraq war, I could easily debate from the pro-war position. That's because the pro-war case is based on a credible theory. I don't happen to agree with the assumptions of that theory, but I could argue it (note that I am not volunteering).But when we come to creationism/evolution, the creationists have no credible theory. I could not present a strong argument for any creationist position, because I know it to be complete nonsense. That's pretty much the point that was being made in Message 5.I could argue some problems I see with neo-Darwinism. But those would be arguments for small refinements (tuning) of ToE. They wouldn't lend any support to creationism.

My request as moderator was that you ignore it and move on. My post as Percy *did* have a smiley attached to the 2nd paragraph because it was obvious parody. You weren't supposed to attach any importance to it, yet you're letting it completely distract you.Focus on the first paragraph and get your thread going.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Your points are valid, but I think you're missing the idea behind this type of debate. You force the other side to deal with weaknesses in their own usual arguments. The fact that you can do nothing but obfuscate from the creo side is hardly a limitation; it is an opportunity - to demonstrate.But it only works if everyone TRULY does their best. In Percy's first paragraph he does pretty well, but when he gets to the hellfire and brimstone part he drops the ball. That's a weak argument that can be readily refuted, even by a "false" creo. You've got to come up with something that at least SOUNDS good, and force your opponent to pick it apart.AbE: I see he's acknowledged it was parody. Sorry I didn't catch it; I took it as a cop-out, albeit one often used by all but the best creos.This message has been edited by berberry, 08-23-2005 11:00 AM

---

"I think younger workers first of all, younger workers have been promised benefits the government promises that have been promised, benefits that we can't keep. That's just the way it is." George W. Bush, May 4, 2005

Percy, not to be mean or anything, but you gotta do better than this. You have to deliberately leave off any major errors, gaffes, etc,...that you feel exist. I mean your wording is full of soft-balls, as if you are begging me to slam you over obvious mistakes.That's not the purpose of the thread. Make the most challenging case you can without any obvious ways you can think of to challenge it, and use data and facts, as you would (hopefully) if you are arguing for ToE.If you cannot make it challenging, then let someone else more creative perhaps, with a heart in the effort, do so.I mean some of your claims, I have never even heard before from the creationist or ID side. The point is for you not to make the worst argument you can, but the best.What do you think the most compelling argument against ToE is?

I suggest you slam poor Percy the Creationist. He's got it coming to him. Show him no mercy. So far you haven't even been able to put together an accurate paraphrase of my argument, let alone rebut it. You look as ridiculous as a boxer who whiffs the air and then throws his hands up in victory.--Percy

You guys are suppossed to be doing your best, not laying out signs begging me to come in and blast you. You know full well there are quotes from Gould claiming there are transitional fossils. I don't want to waste my time with a mere game.If you want to argue that Gould admitted the fossil record was problematic and thus proposed PE, that would be a good point, but this won't work if you don't make the best argument you can, avoiding obvious overstatements or expressions lending themselves to being easily blasted.The overall point is a good one. The way you presented it was asking to be blown out of the water. I'm not going to waste time googling quotes to blast a softball.Get to the meat of it.

The overall point is not a good one. The real fact is that there are plenty of transitional fossils and most creationists don't understand PE. Quotes supporting PE over gradualism are regularly trotted out as "evidence" aginst evolution.And even the argument you call "silly" is used by creationists - here's example from an email list I subscribe to (haven't posted for a while since the current creationists are even worse than the guy I'm quoting)

PaulK, I don't think the evo arguments are any good either, but you are suppossed to present the alternative side as forcefully as you can.So if you are going to present the issue of transitional fossils, don't throw soft-balls begging to be slammed.But you got better with the next post. I thought the recanting comment was good, and getting into the primary substance, but you still overstated what Gould said.Why not discuss the problems Gould admitted to, and go from there. When PE emerged, it really seemed the vast majority of evos had no idea the fossil record was not in agreement with gradualistic models, that species exhibited stasis, etc,...In general, I often find evos believing stuff because it was said, but not ever listening to criticism, which is why they let Haeckel's drawings stand for so long, why they initially clung to the biogenetic law despite absolutely no evidence for it, and why they were suprised by the data that necessitated PE as a proposed solution.

And you were supposed to be producing the best arguments for evolution. Attacking the Flood doesn't qualify.But clearly you aren't in a position to answer the arguments you suggest I use despite the fact that they are little better than the ones you say I shouldn't use.

quote:

---

When PE emerged, it really seemed the vast majority of evos had no idea the fossil record was not in agreement with gradualistic models, that species exhibited stasis, etc,...

---

Firstly PE is gradualistic in the sense Darwin meant (so if it were agaisnt gradualistic models it would have to be agaisnt itself). Secondly PE was based on the accepted evolutionary theory of the time. That's why it caught on quite quickly. The most you can say is that paleontologists were behind on the theory.

Randman, apparently you don't understand how silly and self-serving it is for you to keep coming here and declaring how much better you're doing than everyone else, so I'm not going to try to persuade you.I'm just going to ask you to stop.If you have something constructive and positive to say then that would be fine, but I see no constructive purpose being served by your current posts.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Admin, didn't plan on being here for another 5-6 hours, but I am not here claiming how much better I am doing, or that I am doing "better" or "well" at all. I just have read many posts from you guys and wanted to make sure you did your best to make the thread worthwhile.For me, I will likewise do my best even though I am sometimes arguing against areas that I have not jumped in as much before like YEC Flood geology or cellular structures and so am arguing against arguments and points I am less familiar with and have not used as a basis to criticize ToE.

So far, all we've seen is each side parroting the arguments that the other side makes. It's pretty boring, really.I'd like to see you argue against the arguments that you usually make. For instance, let's see you argue against "voodoo time". Let's see you defend Haekel. Let's see you argue for whale transitionals.

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.