Existence of God

Oh, one more thing: to be fair we need one Creationist moderator/judge and one evolutionist moderator/judge. I'd like to be the evolutionist one but will gladly defer to someone qualified who really wants to serve in such a role. Qualified applicants may apply by replying to this thread.I'm open to format suggestions, but my initial idea is for alternating posts with moderator/judge comments interspersed as necessary. Moderator/judges would award debate points as follows:

1. Unrebutted substantive point: +1
2. Unsuccessfully rebutted substantive point: +1
3. Guideline violation: -1

The current score would be posted each time points are awarded or taken away.------------------

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

I certainly agree to such terms if Joralex is game. In fact, I was coming here just with this suggestion when I saw that Dan C. had beat me to it.

That's not technically why they call Dan the Flash.

quote:

---

Your honor, I feel no need to discuss the blood-stained murder weapon found in my client's home. The thing I've noticed about district attorneys is that they are always asking questions... question after question... there are an infinite number of questions that can be asked, and it serves no purpose. Feel free, however, to call me after the case, and we can discuss these matters over the phone if you are truly seeking the truth.

---

ROTFLMAO!!!I love you, Dan.Seriously, I'd have you over for dinner as long as you don't mind smoking outside.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-04-2003]

Right back at'cha, Schraf.And as it happens, my girlfriend has given me until her birthday (25 short days away) to quit smoking. I'd argue, but she controls the girlfriend supply.Who knew cancer was one of her buttons?But yeah, if you're in the Chicago area, I always enjoy a free meal.

I think this would be a great way to handle any "big" debate where two people agree in advance they'll duke out their positions, without resorting to the old "duck and run" once they've tasted a strong blow from the opposition.Maybe you could even set up a thread for challenges.In addition to the points you have outlined I think it would also be wise to allow participants to call for a judgement.For example I have had times when I felt certain that my "opponent" was purposely ignoring or grossly misunderstanding statements I had made. After trying to correct this matter via more posts my opponent continued to state (s)he was addressing my points accurately.While on the surface this situation should be awarded points (either me or my opponent was wrong), a "call" or "ruling" on the nature of the problem might be more appropriate. At the very least the judges could clarify that either one party was not making their point clearly (so there was a reason for misunderstanding), or that the other was not understanding a point which was clear.In the latter case (if it persists) the "debate" could be called, because further argument (if one side refuses to acknowledge the points of debate) would be useless.I also have a a suggestion on the point system (maybe better):1. Substantive Point Advanced= +1
2. Substantive Point Successfully Rebutted= -1
3. Guideline violation= -1
4. Introduction of Point wholly unrelated to argument= -1In this way the points accumulate for a debater as they are advanced, regardless of attempt at rebuttal. The original point scoring format seemed redundant on this point.#4 encourages people to stick to the topic and penalizes them for bringing in arguments which do nothing to advance debate (often used too distract opponent). I don't believe this is actually a guideline violation, but does show poor skill.------------------
holmes

If you count Ann Arbor as "in the Chicago area" (and I do), let me know when you'll be around.I'll take you to the Deli and feed you a reuben as big as your head.

You're in Ann Arbor, my alma matter!! I'm jealous, except for the winter months of course.

In the interest of feeling comfortable that this would be worth your time (and mine), precisely what is the point that you are trying to make/advance?Joralex

Zhimbo is ABD for his PhD in Cognitive Psychology at UMich.Were you here in 1982 or after?Yes, winters generally suck, but they have been quite mild trhe last couple of years. Maybe we will luck out again....it was 75 degrees here yesterday...

Well, actually it would be the point that you are trying to make/advance, not mine. I believe it was first articulated by you here:http://EvC Forum: Evolution of the eye? The myth goes on... -->EvC Forum: Evolution of the eye? The myth goes on...Here you pose two problems with the evolution of the eye. One problem ("The simplest eye known is not 'simple' at all") you consider solvable, but only by "squirming"; the other problem ("the simultaneous emergence of complementary features") you consider unsolvable.Both questions are worth debating. I believe the first can be countered without resorting to the evasion you describe, and the second one is not nearly "unsolvable", not by a long shot. I'd be happy to debate this.I would be able to start a formal debate after the 13th, as I'll be traveling between now and then. You could certainly start without me, and perhaps you should start, after all these are your claims to start with.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 11-05-2003]

You didn't really answer my question. I know perfectly well what my position is... it is your position that isn't clear. Specifically, you obviously don't agree with my view but my question to you was exactly what is it that you disagree with... what is it you are trying to advance as an alternative?The 'general' answer is, of course, related to materialistic Naturalism, but you are about to find that you are out of gas if you expect science, and science alone, to support your position.I'm available now but I will be on travel from the 14th (Friday) through the 17th (Monday).Here is the relevant excerpt from my previous post: "The argument for the evolution of the eye typically begins with some cell becoming light-sensitive and then evolving through various stages until 'complex vision' is attained. There are at least two problems with this argument:

​

1. The simplest eye known is not "simple" at all. Even those that are 'reconstructed' from (supposed) ancient fossil evidence (e.g., Trilobites) are highly complex, although they (supposedly) go back 1/2 billion years. So, did the complexity of the Trilobite eye evolve very quickly, as some have suggested, in less than 1/2 million years?
If so, where are the intermediate stages of the highly complex Trilobite eye?

​

Of course, the "solution" here is to say that no 'intermediates' have been preserved in the fossil record for us to examine."What is your answer to this, Zhimbo?"2. In any evolutionary theory that I am aware of (excluding 'hopeful monsters'), the simultaneous emergence of multiple, complementary, 'positive' mutations is regarded as a no-no. For example, Theropods didn't just wake up one day with wings, did they? No, as per the theory they had to acquire the various features leading to flight in stages - feathers, muscles, etc.

​

Consider this, of what use to a organism is a fully-formed eyeball? Let's put a fully-formed eyeball on a corn stalk and see what happens.

​

Allow me to spell this out since it is the crux of my argument : there are scores of items (I refer to their combined total as the 'infrastructure') that must be in place to sustain the eyeball and also to make it of any use.

​

Let me revert to "the most primitive" example that is often cited - this is from the PBS site :""Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera." "Here's the rub : without the ability to process the information that this light-sensitive spot acquires, that "sight" is completely useless. And how is information processed if there isn't a connection from the receptor to the processor?

​

Let me stop right there. At this point alone, there had to be three simultaneous subsystems in order to make the whole useful in any way. [BTW, if this sounds a bit like irreducible complexity, that's no accident].

​

Let's get back to the main point - do you know the number or chemical, structural, biological, genetic, and other subsystems that comprise the infrastructure to produce sight by a complex eye (Trilobites, birds or humans)?

​

If you believe that the 'eye evolved' then you must, I presume, begin with the most primitive "eyeball" (note the quotes) imaginable - a 'light-sensitive spot'.

​

But a light-sensitive spot constitutes a detector ONLY (1).
The data that has been detected must now be transmitted (this requires a channel - an "optic nerve") (2)
to a 'processor' of sorts (a 'brain') (3)
that can then interpret this signal and THEN the organism must react to this signal in some way (e.g., "evade a predator") (4) (otherwise, the acquired signal offers no evolutionary advantage at all).

​

ALL of this infrastructure (1, 2, 3, 4 and more) - however primitive you may want to imagine it - had to be in place simultaneously for, if not, then the 'light-sensitive spot' would have been as useful as a lead balloon (figuratively speaking).

​

But, hold on a second - the simultaneous emergence of complementary features in an organism isn't Kosher by neo-Darwinism, Modern Synthesis, or any other evolutionary scenario."What is your answer to this, Zhimbo?Joralex

I would think this would be obvious.You're asking "of what use would the nerves running to the eye and the brain that analyzes the data be without the eye in the first place"? I would assume that the utility of nerves and brains, even without eyes attached to them, would be obvious to the most casual observer. Same with behaviors in response to sensory input. Ergo it's reasonable to conclude that nerves and brains and behavior predate eyes. There's no need for them to arise simultaneously.Why do you think this constitutes a meaningful challenge to evolution?

I was there from 80 to 85 and got a BS in Computer Engineering. My parents, until a month ago lived in Plymouth, MI, but I used to spend my summers in Ann Arbor. I don't miss the long winters, but summer and fall are beautiful in Michigan.75 in November!!! I remember the summer that Mt. Pinatubo in the Phillipines erupted, we rarely got a day as warm as 75 all summer. It was 85 here yesterday, a bit warmer than the average 81.