Any creationists want to debate?

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1 Apr 11, 2012
I want to have a nice clean public debate with a creationist on here. Now, before we get anywhere, I'd like to simply lay the ground rules:

1) I do not want to have to deal with multiple creationists arguing, followed by more Darwinians jumping in on the creationists, both sides perpetuating the cycle that makes the reply count go up but gets me lost sifting through possibly hundreds of posts for my actual target. I would do this in private messages, but a) I want this to be viewable to the public unedited, and b) I've returned here from a months-long hiatus and I don't know any creationists on here off the top of my head. So, if you want to debate me, just post a request, and if I accept it, I'll reply. Sorry, but I can't get overwhelmed as aforementioned! Which brings me to my next point....

2) Don't shoot out more than one topic at a time. This so-called "debating tactic" of drowning the opponent in straw-men, lies, and gibberish has been named a "Gish gallop" and is very annoying and confusing. One argument may spawn two or more, that's just how debate works. But if I feel you're just spouting wholesale amounts of nonsense, then the debate will be terminated.

3) Please, no ad hominem attacks (arguing the opponent's position is false because of something about the opponent himself, not the actual position); red herrings (bringing up irrelevant points in an attempt to distract me) are also not tolerated.

If any of these rules are broken, I'll terminate the discussion, be open to another willing debater, and will have won by default. By agreeing to debate, you agree to follow these rules. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your arguments.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#2 Apr 11, 2012
A couple of points to make:

(a) "Ground Rules" #1 - 3......Good luck with that. You'll need it for a sustained thread.

(b) You are not able to terminate the thread (unless you have been appointed with such powers by the Topix god(s).

(c) I read your post on the other "Evolution" thread. Good work!

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#3 Apr 11, 2012
@Kong

Thanks for the kudos on my previous work. I would like to clarify that what I mean by "terminate the debate" is simply that if I see a Gish gallop, I will simply point it out as such, say that they've violated the rules of the argument, therefore cheated, therefore lost, therefore I won by default. The topic wouldn't be closed, but I would've won the argument and would be open to another creationist willing to debate.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#4 Apr 11, 2012
Heidelberg Kid wrote:
I want to have a nice clean public debate with a creationist on here. Now, before we get anywhere, I'd like to simply lay the ground rules:
1) I do not want to have to deal with multiple creationists arguing, followed by more Darwinians jumping in on the creationists, both sides perpetuating the cycle that makes the reply count go up but gets me lost sifting through possibly hundreds of posts for my actual target. I would do this in private messages, but a) I want this to be viewable to the public unedited, and b) I've returned here from a months-long hiatus and I don't know any creationists on here off the top of my head. So, if you want to debate me, just post a request, and if I accept it, I'll reply. Sorry, but I can't get overwhelmed as aforementioned! Which brings me to my next point....
2) Don't shoot out more than one topic at a time. This so-called "debating tactic" of drowning the opponent in straw-men, lies, and gibberish has been named a "Gish gallop" and is very annoying and confusing. One argument may spawn two or more, that's just how debate works. But if I feel you're just spouting wholesale amounts of nonsense, then the debate will be terminated.
3) Please, no ad hominem attacks (arguing the opponent's position is false because of something about the opponent himself, not the actual position); red herrings (bringing up irrelevant points in an attempt to distract me) are also not tolerated.
If any of these rules are broken, I'll terminate the discussion, be open to another willing debater, and will have won by default. By agreeing to debate, you agree to follow these rules. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your arguments.
Answer these fifteen questions or put a sock in it, ya snot-nosed piece of nothing.

http://creation.com/15-questions

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#5 Apr 11, 2012
Okay, 15th. Rather than spend several posts explaining all the details, I'll link to very handy resources which will take up less space when possible. So, without further ado:

1. http://www.exploringorigins.org , and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution
2.

3. Mutations have been shown to add information ( http://www.youtube.com/watch... ). Then give it time. A lot of time. Life's been around for 4 billion years, so a lot of information was able to build up. This is an oversimplification that doesn't take into account natural selection or quantum evolution, but there are 3.2 billion base pairs, and 4 billion years of evolution, so we need only ONE individual nucleotide being added every year or two to get from nothing to a man.
4. In modern Darwinian theory, natural selection is coupled with mutation. Mutation is the random creative entity.
5. Proteins are coded for in DNA. DNA can mutate, which can add information, as displayed above. Any mutations which benefit the organism will be inherited and dominate the population. Kind of like the eye's evolution: each intermediate stage provides some sort of benefit.
6. You're walking by a river. You pick up a pebble from it. How do you know the rock was smoothed by erosion from the flow of the river and not my cousin with a rock tumbler? It's all a matter of evidence. We have evidence that things evolved, none that it was designed.
7. http://www.youtube.com/watch...
8. www.youtube.com/watch... (When watching this one, please also watch the videos that are linked to in the course of the film.)
9. It's very unlikely that any individual species will fossilise, given that it must die and be buried in quite rare conditions. As Richard Dawkins points out, though (The Ancestor's Tale, p. 13), even if the fossil record was nothing but one big gap, there'd still be overwhelming evidence for evolution. Fossils are just a nice big bonus.
10. All evolution cares is whether you survive to reproduce. Whatever lets you achieve that goal gets passed on and so survives. There's no great chain of being with Man on top and amoeba on the bottom.
11. www.youtube.com/watch... for intelligence. With morality, let me quote from the "Top 10 myths about evolution":
<quote>As a social primate species we evolved
a deep sense of right and wrong in
order to accentuate and reward
reciprocity and cooperation, and to
attenuate and punish excessive selfishness
and free riding. As well, evolution
created the moral emotions that tell us
that lying, adultery, and stealing are
wrong because they destroy trust in
human relationships that depend on
truth-telling, fidelity, and respect for
property. It would not be possible for a
social primate species to survive without
some moral sense. On the constitution of
human nature is built the constitutions
of human societies.</quote>
12. Because evolution is in many ways an unpredictable event, and we've (we've being the scientific community) already established evolution is true.
13. We realised what was going on with antibiotic resistance, for one. And besides, humans are innately curious about our origins. Evolution answers that curiosity.
14. Because it's SCIENCE: it follows the scientific method. And we can observe what happens in evolution: on a small scale in nature and in the lab, and on a large scale through the fossil record and genetics.
15. Evolution is not a religion. A religion is (remembering from Google) "belief and worship in a supernatural controlling entity". No evolutionist I've heard of worships Darwin or natural selection.

Anything else?
LGK

Ruthin, UK

#6 Apr 11, 2012
Heidelberg Kid wrote:
Okay, 15th. Rather than spend several posts explaining all the details, I'll link to very handy resources which will take up less space when possible. So, without further ado:
1. http://www.exploringorigins.org , and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rtmbcfb_rdcXX
3. Mutations have been shown to add information ( http://www.youtube.com/watch... ). Then give it time. A lot of time. Life's been around for 4 billion years, so a lot of information was able to build up. This is an oversimplification that doesn't take into account natural selection or quantum evolution, but there are 3.2 billion base pairs, and 4 billion years of evolution, so we need only ONE individual nucleotide being added every year or two to get from nothing to a man.
4. In modern Darwinian theory, natural selection is coupled with mutation. Mutation is the random creative entity.
5. Proteins are coded for in DNA. DNA can mutate, which can add information, as displayed above. Any mutations which benefit the organism will be inherited and dominate the population. Kind of like the eye's evolution: each intermediate stage provides some sort of benefit.
6. You're walking by a river. You pick up a pebble from it. How do you know the rock was smoothed by erosion from the flow of the river and not my cousin with a rock tumbler? It's all a matter of evidence. We have evidence that things evolved, none that it was designed.
7. http://www.youtube.com/watch...
8. www.youtube.com/watch... (When watching this one, please also watch the videos that are linked to in the course of the film.)
9. It's very unlikely that any individual species will fossilise, given that it must die and be buried in quite rare conditions. As Richard Dawkins points out, though (The Ancestor's Tale, p. 13), even if the fossil record was nothing but one big gap, there'd still be overwhelming evidence for evolution. Fossils are just a nice big bonus.
10. All evolution cares is whether you survive to reproduce. Whatever lets you achieve that goal gets passed on and so survives. There's no great chain of being with Man on top and amoeba on the bottom.
11. www.youtube.com/watch... for intelligence. With morality, let me quote from the "Top 10 myths about evolution":
<quote>As a social primate species we evolved
a deep sense of right and wrong in
order to accentuate and reward
reciprocity and cooperation, and to
attenuate and punish excessive selfishness
and free riding. As well, evolution
created the moral emotions that tell us
that lying, adultery, and stealing are
wrong because they destroy trust in
human relationships that depend on
truth-telling, fidelity, and respect for
property. It would not be possible for a
social primate species to survive without
some moral sense. On the constitution of
human nature is built the constitutions
of human societies.</quote>
12. Because evolution is in many ways an unpredictable event, and we've (we've being the scientific community) already established evolution is true.
13. We realised what was going on with antibiotic resistance, for one. And besides, humans are innately curious about our origins. Evolution answers that curiosity.
14. Because it's SCIENCE: it follows the scientific method. And we can observe what happens in evolution: on a small scale in nature and in the lab, and on a large scale through the fossil record and genetics.
15. Evolution is not a religion. A religion is (remembering from Google) "belief and worship in a supernatural controlling entity". No evolutionist I've heard of worships Darwin or natural selection.
Anything else?
On point number 3, you invoke time.“A lot of time,” you called it. Here’s my question: What property of time has causal efficacy or is a mechanism? I don’t think time, however much there is makes any difference.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#7 Apr 11, 2012
Heidelberg Kid wrote:
Okay, 15th. Rather than spend several posts explaining all the details, I'll link to very handy resources which will take up less space when possible. So, without further ado:
1. http://www.exploringorigins.org , and abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =rtmbcfb_rdcXX
3. Mutations have been shown to add information ( http://www.youtube.com/watch... ). Then give it time. A lot of time. Life's been around for 4 billion years, so a lot of information was able to build up. This is an oversimplification that doesn't take into account natural selection or quantum evolution, but there are 3.2 billion base pairs, and 4 billion years of evolution, so we need only ONE individual nucleotide being added every year or two to get from nothing to a man.
4. In modern Darwinian theory, natural selection is coupled with mutation. Mutation is the random creative entity.
5. Proteins are coded for in DNA. DNA can mutate, which can add information, as displayed above. Any mutations which benefit the organism will be inherited and dominate the population. Kind of like the eye's evolution: each intermediate stage provides some sort of benefit.
6. You're walking by a river. You pick up a pebble from it. How do you know the rock was smoothed by erosion from the flow of the river and not my cousin with a rock tumbler? It's all a matter of evidence. We have evidence that things evolved, none that it was designed.
7. http://www.youtube.com/watch...
8. www.youtube.com/watch... (When watching this one, please also watch the videos that are linked to in the course of the film.)
9. It's very unlikely that any individual species will fossilise, given that it must die and be buried in quite rare conditions. As Richard Dawkins points out, though (The Ancestor's Tale, p. 13), even if the fossil record was nothing but one big gap, there'd still be overwhelming evidence for evolution. Fossils are just a nice big bonus.
10. All evolution cares is whether you survive to reproduce. Whatever lets you achieve that goal gets passed on and so survives. There's no great chain of being with Man on top and amoeba on the bottom.
11. www.youtube.com/watch... for intelligence. With morality, let me quote from the "Top 10 myths about evolution":
<quote>As a social primate species we evolved
a deep sense of right and wrong in
order to accentuate and reward
reciprocity and cooperation, and to
attenuate and punish excessive selfishness
and free riding. As well, evolution
created the moral emotions that tell us
that lying, adultery, and stealing are
wrong because they destroy trust in
human relationships that depend on
truth-telling, fidelity, and respect for
property. It would not be possible for a
social primate species to survive without
some moral sense. On the constitution of
human nature is built the constitutions
of human societies.</quote>
12. Because evolution is in many ways an unpredictable event, and we've (we've being the scientific community) already established evolution is true.
13. We realised what was going on with antibiotic resistance, for one. And besides, humans are innately curious about our origins. Evolution answers that curiosity.
14. Because it's SCIENCE: it follows the scientific method. And we can observe what happens in evolution: on a small scale in nature and in the lab, and on a large scale through the fossil record and genetics.
15. Evolution is not a religion. A religion is (remembering from Google) "belief and worship in a supernatural controlling entity". No evolutionist I've heard of worships Darwin or natural selection.
Anything else?
Yeah, you took me seriously. Big mistake. That was posted to me in another forum. I just copied 'God did it with magic' fifteen times. I didn't bother to read the questions. Good effort, though. I imagine your answers are well thought out.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#8 Apr 11, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
On point number 3, you invoke time.“A lot of time,” you called it. Here’s my question: What property of time has causal efficacy or is a mechanism? I don’t think time, however much there is makes any difference.
It's just a bunch of cráp from a fundie hate site. Gotta hand it to the kid for putting any effort into it at all. I sure didn't.

Doesn't matter what you think. Polymath chewed you up and spit you out on your infinite causal chain argument.
Evolution Recall

Great Neck, NY

#9 Apr 26, 2012
So tell me something, if evolution is so credible, then how come no evolutionists ever bother debating Hovind or other creationists?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#10 Apr 26, 2012
Evolution Recall wrote:
So tell me something, if evolution is so credible, then how come no evolutionists ever bother debating Hovind or other creationists?
What is to be gained by wasting time with non-scientist lying cranks?(shrug)
Joshua

Raleigh, NC

#11 Apr 26, 2012
I would love to prove you wrong Hiedelburg Kid
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#12 Apr 26, 2012
The answer is no. They do not want to debate.

If they did they would not continuously beat up their caricature of evolution and address our posts. The fact we exist (people who merely disagree) is proof to them that they are right. They are here to remind themselves of that.
Joshua

Raleigh, NC

#13 Apr 26, 2012
Why is evolution right? Answer that question with a logical true answer, and I will be suprised.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#14 Apr 26, 2012
Joshua wrote:
Why is evolution right? Answer that question with a logical true answer, and I will be suprised.
No, you will be bewildered.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#15 Apr 26, 2012
The Dude wrote:
No, you will be bewildered.
Correction: You WERE. Past tense.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#16 Apr 27, 2012
Joshua wrote:
Why is evolution right? Answer that question with a logical true answer, and I will be suprised.
Because all the evidence supports it and none points against it and toward instant special creation 6000 years ago as in the Bible myth.

A question for YOU:

Can you give us the name of one single qualified, PhD'ed working biologist who is NOT a Christian and NOT religious, and yet who thinks the world is young and species were special-created all at once BASED SOLELY ON THE EVIDENCE?

Maybe a Chinese or Japanese scientist?

Why is it that the people attacking evolution are almost exclusively conservative or evangelical American Protestants, of one stripe or another?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#17 Apr 27, 2012
Evolution Recall wrote:
So tell me something, if evolution is so credible, then how come no evolutionists ever bother debating Hovind or other creationists?
Because creationism is totally NON-credible and these working scientists have a lot better things to do.
LGK

UK

#18 Apr 28, 2012
Joshua wrote:
Why is evolution right? Answer that question with a logical true answer, and I will be suprised.
Apart from "because we say so & there's lots & lots evidence" (all ancedotal), I'm afraid there is NO logical answer.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#19 Apr 28, 2012
Heidelberg Kid wrote:
I want to have a nice clean public debate with a creationist on here. Now, before we get anywhere, I'd like to simply lay the ground rules:
1) I do not want to have to deal with multiple creationists arguing, followed by more Darwinians jumping in on the creationists, both sides perpetuating the cycle that makes the reply count go up but gets me lost sifting through possibly hundreds of posts for my actual target. I would do this in private messages, but a) I want this to be viewable to the public unedited, and b) I've returned here from a months-long hiatus and I don't know any creationists on here off the top of my head. So, if you want to debate me, just post a request, and if I accept it, I'll reply. Sorry, but I can't get overwhelmed as aforementioned! Which brings me to my next point....
2) Don't shoot out more than one topic at a time. This so-called "debating tactic" of drowning the opponent in straw-men, lies, and gibberish has been named a "Gish gallop" and is very annoying and confusing. One argument may spawn two or more, that's just how debate works. But if I feel you're just spouting wholesale amounts of nonsense, then the debate will be terminated.
3) Please, no ad hominem attacks (arguing the opponent's position is false because of something about the opponent himself, not the actual position); red herrings (bringing up irrelevant points in an attempt to distract me) are also not tolerated.
If any of these rules are broken, I'll terminate the discussion, be open to another willing debater, and will have won by default. By agreeing to debate, you agree to follow these rules. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your arguments.
I accept your challenge for a one-on-one debate in about a month from now. We can have our own personal debate thread at the Foundation of Science forum. everythingimportant.org/SDA/
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#20 Apr 28, 2012
Heidelberg Kid wrote:
we need only ONE individual nucleotide being added every year or two to get from nothing to a man.
The same argument justifies the belief that an oak tree can evolve into a human. However, a valid argument requires proof that each "small step" in oak tree to human evolution would produce a viable life-form.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 min One way or another 14,551
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 10 min openyourminds 142,088
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 45 min ChristineM 795
Why natural selection can't work 1 hr Strel 11
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 4 hr Charles Idemi 939
Darwin on the rocks Tue The Dude 832
Science News (Sep '13) Mon Ricky F 2,961
More from around the web