Creationist Challenge

[thaiboxerken]

This is from a creationist book that challenges evolutionists (scientists) to a written debate as such:

Introduction

The following offer is for a written, scientific debate on the creation-evolution issue. It addresses a longstanding desire by the public for a comprehensive and understandable comparison of the two main explanations for how everything began—a heated issue in which little constructive dialogue has occurred. Scientific disagreements can and should be discussed without acrimony.

Notice several things about this sincere and fair offer on pages 347–348. Evolutionists who disagree with these proposed debate procedures but wish to participate can propose their own suggestions for a written, strictly scientific debate. They must sign a statement, as I will, that they will abide by the editor’s decisions resolving disagreements about debate procedures.

However, the debate must be restricted to science and avoid religion, a broader, more complex, and less-structured subject. (Because I am not a theologian, I will not debate those topics. My focus is on the scientific evidence relating to origins.) Scientific methodology is also better understood by more people. Indeed, methods for reaching religious conclusions are diverse, subjective, and cultural. Religious disagreements have been with us for thousands of years. A purely scientific debate will be broad enough.

Many can participate on the evolutionist side. Only the lead evolutionist must hold a doctorate in either applied or basic sciences. Those who wish to participate but have no formal qualifications may recruit a lead evolutionist and offer their services to the evolutionist side. (A lack of recognized qualifications does not mean a person has nothing to contribute. However, without them, many readers might dismiss that side’s case or blame a poor performance, not on a weak case, but on a lack of scientific qualifications.)

Once a lead evolutionist agrees to participate, we will search for and select an editor associated with a large, neutral publisher. I am confident many publishers will be interested. Those invited may conclude that one or both sides have not demonstrated the ability to produce a credible, unemotional, and thorough case, understandable to most readers. If so, sales of the final, book-length debate would suffer. This, after all, is a publisher’s main concern. Editors and publishers may also conclude that one side is unprepared to address all relevant disciplines in the creation-evolution issue: life sciences, astronomical sciences, earth sciences, physical sciences, and their many subdisciplines. If so, the editor and publisher might ask one side to add qualified people to its side or withdraw.

The editor/publisher may require both sides of the debate to sign a contract to complete the manuscript as described in this offer. Because the publisher has “first right of refusal� and makes no commitment to publish the completed debate, the publisher has much to gain with no risk.

Walt Brown

http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ420.html#wp1185921

I can sense a trap here, especially since creationists are involved. I have to wonder, has anyone accepted this or is this pretty much treated as a nonsense challenge?

[Zep]

They have made a major boo-boo right from the start: Evolution is NOT about origins.

Other than that, it looks like they are doing the same old boring trick of filtering the "debate" so that there is no possibility of it straying towards any facts they could not deal with by using naysaying. Their usual tactics are:

1. Make outrageous and outraged statements about genuine scientific research that are plainly and dishonestly twisted out of context or are outright false;

2. Ignore, filter out, or simply naysay any responses;

3. PRAISE THE LORD! Pass the plate.

4. Go to step 1.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, in this challenge, he retains full control of the material to be published so he can do whatever clever editting he wants. I found a good link at Talk Origins regarding Walt Brown.

[Daylight]

Don’t waste your time since you are not allowed to play in their yard.

To be fair you need to challenge any science of creationism, you can’t. So you will be on the defensive the whole time trying to explain their lies which really takes several years in school to understand.

It’s a set up.

[wastepanel]

Wow....didn't know Christians were so untrustworthy. Some of these creationists are loons, but others can bring some valid arguments to the table. If someone is willing to debate the subject based upon science and not religion, keep the correspondances on file and refute the published events. My prediction is this will happen:

(1) A heated discussion will take place.

(2) Both sides are gonna get their feathers ruffled.

(3) Creationist will finish his/her argument with "But science cannot explain the following phenomenon..."

(4) Skeptic will say you can't jump to conclusions to make creationism correct.

(5) Both sides will still think the other side is incorrect.

None of us have the answers to the debate. A discussion is not going to solve that.

The problem that I find is that there are thousands and thousands theories regarding creationism. Which theory will be argued? Is the creationist going to jump theories in mid-discussion to make an argument valid?

Don't discount a creationist's arguments because that person believes in God. Discredit the theory with a valid argument. If the creationist stumbles, point it out. If it's a valid argument, let it be.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by wastepanel
If the creationist stumbles, point it out. If it's a valid argument, let it be.
I've seen nothing but the former, primarily in the form of argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).

[Ducky]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
I've seen nothing but the former, primarily in the form of argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).


I agree.

Unfortunately I think your letter will go unanswered, due to the fact that the ID or creationists tend to like stealth campaigns, as they pretty much know they will get shot down in a scientific debate.

All we have is their dishonesty to hold up opposite science's honest quest for fact.

[tofu]

You guys sound awfully sure of yourselves. Be careful. Have you ever actually attended one of these debates, or are you just stating your prejudices against what you believe to be "those stupid creationists?" Take my advice, *never* underestimate an opponent.

I attended a creationism/evolution debate at a university - that's right, not in a church, not on the "creationist's playground," but in the library of a secular university. Guess what, the professors there to explain evolution (who had phds and obviously knew their stuff) didn't show too well. One thing in particular sticks out in my mind. I don't remember anything that the professors said, but I do remember something the creationist said. He showed a picture of all the different kinds of beaks on the finches that Darwin found. He said, "Darwin noticed that every species of finch had a beak that was beautifully adapted to its environment - Darwin theorized that all of these finches had descended from a common ancestor."

Then the creationist looked at the audience and said, "you know what, I bet he was right. I bet it was a biiird."

And of course everyone laughed. I laughed too. I couldn't help it. It was funny. A lot of what this guy said was funny. I would really caution you. Don't underestimate people like him. He'll make *you* look like the ignorant fool. People like him do this for a living pretty much. They've read talk.origins more thoroughly than you have. They know what you're going to say. They know how to respond in a way that will make you look bad. Do you know what they are going to say? I doubt it. If they lost debates they wouldn't keep going to debates.

Still, if you do debate him I'd love to watch. I'll cheer for you, but don't expect me to hold in the laughter when he gets a good jab.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by tofu
He said, "Darwin noticed that every species of finch had a beak that was beautifully adapted to its environment - Darwin theorized that all of these finches had descended from a common ancestor."

Then the creationist looked at the audience and said, "you know what, I bet he was right. I bet it was a biiird."


It is funny, but not for the reasons the creationist intended.

But I would expect someone a lot smarter than the kind of creationists you find on the internet.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by tofu
You guys sound awfully sure of yourselves. Be careful. Have you ever actually attended one of these debates, or are you just stating your prejudices against what you believe to be "those stupid creationists?" Take my advice, *never* underestimate an opponent.

I attended a creationism/evolution debate at a university - that's right, not in a church, not on the "creationist's playground," but in the library of a secular university. Guess what, the professors there to explain evolution (who had phds and obviously knew their stuff) didn't show too well. One thing in particular sticks out in my mind. I don't remember anything that the professors said, but I do remember something the creationist said. He showed a picture of all the different kinds of beaks on the finches that Darwin found. He said, "Darwin noticed that every species of finch had a beak that was beautifully adapted to its environment - Darwin theorized that all of these finches had descended from a common ancestor."

Then the creationist looked at the audience and said, "you know what, I bet he was right. I bet it was a biiird."

And of course everyone laughed. I laughed too. I couldn't help it. It was funny. A lot of what this guy said was funny. I would really caution you. Don't underestimate people like him. He'll make *you* look like the ignorant fool. People like him do this for a living pretty much. They've read talk.origins more thoroughly than you have. They know what you're going to say. They know how to respond in a way that will make you look bad. Do you know what they are going to say? I doubt it. If they lost debates they wouldn't keep going to debates.

Still, if you do debate him I'd love to watch. I'll cheer for you, but don't expect me to hold in the laughter when he gets a good jab.

Well again, I think that's a perfect case of not debating scientifically, and distorting science for their shock factor. This person had no comment, I bet, on the lack of any independent study or expiriments the ID folk have done, nor does he publish his ideas in any mainstream journal. He would be torn apart there because his bird joke wouldn't have had any impact.

Again, on thier turf. The problem is to get the scientists to employ the same dynamic and include their facts.

[tofu]

Originally posted by fowlsound
Again, on thier turf.

So the 5th floor of a university library is "thier (sic) turf?" I don't think you understood my post at all.

We're all in agreement here that logic and reason show evolution to be right and ID to be wrong. What I'm trying to empress upon you is that in a public debate, a skillful debater will make you look like a fool, regardless of the merits of your case. It's about playing the crowd. It's not about your turf or their turf or anybody's turf. When someone says, "you're on their turf" they mean that they set the rules and that those rules are not favorable to you. I'm here to tell you, an articulate and charismatic person will own you like a school girl in a four-square tournament, regardless of who set the rules of the debate.

I would never debate one of these people in public. Hell, I wouldn't debate a Apollo Hoax Believer in public, and I feel a lot better prepared in that arena than in the evolution one. Seriously, I wouldn't even debate the time cube guy!

If anybody here starts feeling all high and mighty and runs off to debate one of these ID guys, you're going to wish you hadn't. What do you think, that you're the smartest person they've been up against? You think that in all the years they've been doing this, they've never faced anyone like you? You have some fantasy that after you put them in their place, they will retire to obscurity, or maybe they'll drop down right there on the stage and commit seppuku? Lol! Think again. Everyone will probably be laughing at *you* by the time the debate is over.

My advice, leave this stuff to the professionals. An invitation to "debate" is a setup.

edit: to correct spelling

[Jon.]

Originally posted by tofu
So the 5th floor of a university library is "thier (sic) turf?"

Anywhere there's an audience looking for cheap laughs is their turf. These guys debate in soundbites. They grab at some aspect of evolution that they think makes it look silly or impossible to an audience that isn't familiar with the science, and pound that point over and over without looking deeper. They don't debate the science at all, because they have no science with which to debate.

They're not interested in science. They're not interested in convincing scientists, or even anyone who knows what they're talking about. They're not interested in being right. They're only interested in making people think they're right. They're after "hearts and minds", not scientific accuracy.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by tofu
So the 5th floor of a university library is "thier (sic) turf?" I don't think you understood my post at all.

We're all in agreement here that logic and reason show evolution to be right and ID to be wrong. What I'm trying to empress upon you is that in a public debate, a skillful debater will make you look like a fool, regardless of the merits of your case. It's about playing the crowd. It's not about your turf or their turf or anybody's turf. When someone says, "you're on their turf" they mean that they set the rules and that those rules are not favorable to you. I'm here to tell you, an articulate and charismatic person will own you like a school girl in a four-square tournament, regardless of who set the rules of the debate.

I would never debate one of these people in public. Hell, I wouldn't debate a Apollo Hoax Believer in public, and I feel a lot better prepared in that arena than in the evolution one. Seriously, I wouldn't even debate the time cube guy!

If anybody here starts feeling all high and mighty and runs off to debate one of these ID guys, you're going to wish you hadn't. What do you think, that you're the smartest person they've been up against? You think that in all the years they've been doing this, they've never faced anyone like you? You have some fantasy that after you put them in their place, they will retire to obscurity, or maybe they'll drop down right there on the stage and commit seppuku? Lol! Think again. Everyone will probably be laughing at *you* by the time the debate is over.

My advice, leave this stuff to the professionals. An invitation to "debate" is a setup.

edit: to correct spelling


I certainly don't think I am the smartest person they've been up against. Then again, I'm not debating them. TO give a public forum for them to grandstand and throw BS all around itsn't my idea of what is needed.

And Jon is absolutely right, I think. They do debate in soundbytes and anywhere public and not peer reviewed by scientists is their forum.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Wow....didn't know Christians were so untrustworthy.

Then you're not paying attention.


Some of these creationists are loons, but others can bring some valid arguments to the table.

All of them are loons, there are no valid arguments to support ID or creationism.

If someone is willing to debate the subject based upon science and not religion, keep the correspondances on file and refute the published events. My prediction is this will happen:

Sort of, but the problem is CREATIONISM ISN'T A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. That is the gist of the controversy. Creationists want to think that it's a scientific theory, but the facts and evidence just don't support them.

None of us have the answers to the debate. A discussion is not going to solve that.

WHAT? You are absolutely wrong. It is a fact that evolution happens.


If it's a valid argument, let it be.

I have yet to see a valid argument from the creationists.

[BillHoyt]

I can sense a trap here, especially since creationists are involved. I have to wonder, has anyone accepted this or is this pretty much treated as a nonsense challenge?

The "trap" is right there, in the text. They want to try to settle the question via debate. That is not how science operates. They want Joe Everyman to understand the arguments. That is not how science operates. They want to legitimize rhetoric as the sine qua non of science. That it is not.

[BillHoyt]

I haven't had time to read all the responses, and apologize if someone has already covered this...

To help put this "challenge" into a more specific context, we need to look at the recent history of creationists desperately trying to get a creationist paper publisched in a highly respected biology journal (such as Science or Nature.) None have been accepted because none have passed muster with their peer-review processes. Creationists whine that these processes are biased and politically designed to block out their papers. Scientists generally laugh at this, but the public can be convinced to buy it because science education is so poor. Part of the reason for that paucity of education is the creationists themselves who keep wanting the public to think Darwin is the anti-Christ and science merely rhetoric. The last bit, of course, represents the bizarrely bedfellow nature of right-wing creationists and left-wing PoMos. To my mind, then, this "challenge's" trap is for us to accept the legitimacy of viewing science as narratively or rhetorically driven and decided by debate or politics.

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Then you're not paying attention.



All of them are loons, there are no valid arguments to support ID or creationism.



Sort of, but the problem is CREATIONISM ISN'T A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. That is the gist of the controversy. Creationists want to think that it's a scientific theory, but the facts and evidence just don't support them.



WHAT? You are absolutely wrong. It is a fact that evolution happens.



I have yet to see a valid argument from the creationists.

I feel Tofu made a very good point in this forum. Don't debate, because these guys are professionals. They know their stuff, and they know your stuff. For every point you can make, they will make 5. For every rebuttal, they'll make 10 counterpoints.

Look Thai. I know you are flexing your muscles to gear up for an argument here, but it's not gonna happen. Obviously, you have not studied the different theories of creationism. Alot of them even reccognize "Darwinism", and accept it. A creationist's argument will begin and end with "In the beginning...". Until science can say what happened "in the beginning", "none of us have the answers to win the debate".

In order to argue against creationism, you must understand it. It's a two way street as scientists say that creationists must understand their own theory. And, like I said, there are thousands of theories, some of them very close to other theories. Did you know there is a creationism theory that says all science is correct, and that God just put the first molecule in motion? How you gonna argue that bud? All your info you've been storing up is now wasted because the other side agrees with you. And, try as you might, you're not gonna win cause you're argument will be "don't jump to deity" conclusion, and theirs will be "why not?" or "don't rule out deity".

You can't explain it. I can't explain it. Noone can explain it...for now.

[Martin]

This would be the same challenge Joe Meert took up more than four years ago. Brown refused to debate, ignoring the rules he himself wrote to get out of it. Like Hovind, he simply wants to be able to claim that no one has beaten his challenge. The fact that this is because the challenge is a fraud is something he'd rather keep quiet.

[Martin]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Did you know there is a creationism theory that says all science is correct, and that God just put the first molecule in motion?

That's not a theory, in the scientific sense. And it's not what the term 'creationism' usually refers to either. You're free to use words in a different way if you like, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

And, try as you might, you're not gonna win cause you're argument will be "don't jump to deity" conclusion, and theirs will be "why not?" or "don't rule out deity".

If they accept science, we've already won. That they see a deity behind it all doesn't matter to most of us.

[Bronze Dog]

Note that my replies primarily stand for biblical literalist creationists and the ID people are trying to push their stuff into our schools.

Originally posted by wastepanel
In order to argue against creationism, you must understand it.
Whenever they complain I don't understand, they never try to explain points I'm missing.

Did you know there is a creationism theory that says all science is correct, and that God just put the first molecule in motion? How you gonna argue that bud?
You don't: You say the magic words "argumentum ad ignoratium" and dismiss it.

All your info you've been storing up is now wasted because the other side agrees with you.
We don't have to use information most of the time: We're the skeptics, they're the advocates. The burden of proof is on them. They present baseless assertions, and we just have to keep calling them on it.

And, try as you might, you're not gonna win cause you're argument will be "don't jump to deity" conclusion, and theirs will be "why not?" or "don't rule out deity".
And our response to that will be "argumentum ad ignoratium". That's why you don't jump to a deity: You can't argue from an absence. Science is about evidence.

You can't explain it. I can't explain it. Noone can explain it...for now.
That's why we have to keep working under the null hypothesis (that their is no designer) until someone can come up with a successful experiment that demonstrates the existence of a designer.

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by Martin
That's not a theory, in the scientific sense. And it's not what the term 'creationism' usually refers to either. You're free to use words in a different way if you like, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.



If they accept science, we've already won. That they see a deity behind it all doesn't matter to most of us.

How about we look at that different forms of creationism:

Talk Origins--What is creationism? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html)

Sorry, it's a fact. Whatever science doesn't explain, religious creationists explain with God.

[wastepanel]

You guys are totally missing my point on this topic!!!!

Does science explain the origins of the universe? To a point, it can be proved what happened in the evolutionary cycle of the universe. But science cannot explain where the first molecule came from, and there are lots of "theories" trying to explain it...only difference is that creationists say God was the catilyst.

You guys are arguing ignorance with ignorance. If nobody can PROVE what happened at the absolute beginning of the universe (scientists or creationists), why are you willing to argue it?

I do believe there is a God. But, do I get on here and constantly try to make others believe? No. My statement was and still is that you cannot win the argument. I cannot win the argument. We are arguing theories.

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by wastepanel
You guys are totally missing my point on this topic!!!!

Honestly, I think it's you who misses the point.


Does science explain the origins of the universe? To a point, it can be proved what happened in the evolutionary cycle of the universe. But science cannot explain where the first molecule came from, and there are lots of "theories" trying to explain it...only difference is that creationists say God was the catilyst.

1. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origins of the universe. Why do you insist on mixing the two issues?
2. You do understand what argument from ignorance (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/ig.php) is, right? If not, please look it up.


You guys are arguing ignorance with ignorance. If nobody can PROVE what happened at the absolute beginning of the universe (scientists or creationists), why are you willing to argue it?


No, we're going with the null hypothesis. Creationists make a claim that they can't prove.


I do believe there is a God. But, do I get on here and constantly try to make others believe? No. My statement was and still is that you cannot win the argument. I cannot win the argument. We are arguing theories.

We're not arguing theories, since creationism doesn't qualify as a scientific theory.

edited to add link

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by wastepanel
But science cannot explain where the first molecule came from, and there are lots of "theories" trying to explain it...only difference is that creationists say God was the catilyst. Technically, a catalyst isn't causal. [/nitpick]

[Bronze Dog]

SwissSkeptic covered it beter than I could.

But here's a little more:

We aren't making arguments about how the universe began: I freely admit that I don't know, and it seems likely humankind will never know.

What I'm complaining about is your logical fallacies and lack of evidence. Don't think that you can make unfounded assertions in a science forum without expecting people to call you on it. Faith is a thing for religion forums.

The burden of proof is on you. We're just trying to make you feel its weight. This is skepticism 101.

[Psi Baba]

Originally posted by wastepanel
You guys are totally missing my point on this topic!!!!

Does science explain the origins of the universe? To a point, it can be proved what happened in the evolutionary cycle of the universe. But science cannot explain where the first molecule came from, and there are lots of "theories" trying to explain it...only difference is that creationists say God was the catilyst.

You guys are arguing ignorance with ignorance. If nobody can PROVE what happened at the absolute beginning of the universe (scientists or creationists), why are you willing to argue it?

I do believe there is a God. But, do I get on here and constantly try to make others believe? No. My statement was and still is that you cannot win the argument. I cannot win the argument. We are arguing theories.
But (as Zep already pointed out in the second post in this thread) the Creationists keep trying to say that they are debating Creation vs. Evolution, but then they go on to argue Creation vs. Cosmology. If they want to debate Cosmology, fine, but Evolution has nothing to do with Cosmology.
Right from their proposal:
"The following offer is for a written, scientific debate on the creation-evolution issue." "...comparison of the two main explanations for how everything began." "My focus is on the scientific evidence relating to origins." Not the same thing!!! Until they can get a grip on what it is they want to debate, there is no point in participating. Bottom line: they hate evolution because it threatens and challenges their belief system, but all they have as a counter is a fairy-tale creation story.

[Mongrel]

Originally posted by wastepanel
You guys are totally missing my point on this topic!!!!

Does science explain the origins of the universe? To a point, it can be proved what happened in the evolutionary cycle of the universe. But science cannot explain where the first molecule came from, and there are lots of "theories" trying to explain it...only difference is that creationists say God was the catilyst.


1) It tries

2) Yes it can, just because we weren't there or can't manage to do it in a lab doesn't mean it's impossible.

3) You ought to check which version of the word "theory" the scienctists are using. Talk Origins has a nice section on it

3a) Abiogenesis is not Evolution. Evolution can only happen when you have a living molecule.

3b) They have "created life" in laboratory conditions (NCSE article) (http://www.ncseweb.org/icons/icon1millerurey.html) and everytime we find out more about early Earth conditions the experiment will get more refined...

4) All very well saying the "God was the Catalyst" but the I like about Science is that tries to answer questions, as an example..
How do you explain antibiotic resistance in germs?
ID'r\Creationist - God obviously wanted it that way.
Scientist - Hmmm, good question. Let me look into it and get back to you.

Simplified? Yes, but it gets the point across.

One of the main niggling points I find (being a non-scientist) is that the majority of people who decry evolution do not have the right qualifications. They have many figureheads who can come up with a degrees the length of your arm but none of them relevant to the fields of evolutionary Biology (very few from any of the Biology fields).

To quote Lenny Flank (http://www.geocities.com/lflank/), from his numerous posts over at The Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/) What is the scientific theory of ID, and how we can test it using the scientific method?"

No ID supporter has proposed an answer yet


EDIT: point 3b, didn't want to post without some form of reference

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by SwissSkeptic
Honestly, I think it's you who misses the point.



1. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the origins of the universe. Why do you insist on mixing the two issues?
2. You do understand what argument from ignorance is, right? If not, please look it up.

[/b]

No, we're going with the null hypothesis. Creationists make a claim that they can't prove.



We're not arguing theories, since creationism doesn't qualify as a scientific theory. [/B]

(1) I am not missing the point. Do you know what theory the man issuing this challenge is going to argue? If you looked at the different forms of creationism, you would notice that the theory taught by the Protestant and Catholic religion is (gasp) evolution exists, but God started it all or oversaw it. Now, if you have prepared all this evidence to argue a creationist that evolution does exist, you're done. You say he is giving an "argument from ignorance". The creationist will ask for you to disprove his theory. You can't. He asks you for your theory. Whatever theory you throw out will be met with the same hostility you have placed on his theory. BECAUSE NEITHER SIDE CAN SAY DEFINATIVELY!

(2) I am not arguing for either theory. My point is why go into an argument with someone that has knowledge of both sides of the debate without knowing what he is going to argue? It's not science, it's common sense. You're quote of "We're not arguing theories, since creationism doesn't qualify as a scientific theory" already shows how closeminded you are towards researching the opponants theory (since he doesn't have one). What will your response be to "Explain your credentials and how do you know that God was not present during the creation"?. The answer of "I don't know" is going to be met with jubilation because, well, he just beat you at a debate.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
(1) I am not missing the point. Do you know what theory the man issuing this challenge is going to argue? If you looked at the different forms of creationism, you would notice that the theory taught by the Protestant and Catholic religion is (gasp) evolution exists, but God started it all or oversaw it. Now, if you have prepared all this evidence to argue a creationist that evolution does exist, you're done. You say he is giving an "argument from ignorance". The creationist will ask for you to disprove his theory. You can't. He asks you for your theory. Whatever theory you throw out will be met with the same hostility you have placed on his theory. BECAUSE NEITHER SIDE CAN SAY DEFINATIVELY!

(2) I am not arguing for either theory. My point is why go into an argument with someone that has knowledge of both sides of the debate without knowing what he is going to argue? It's not science, it's common sense. You're quote of "We're not arguing theories, since creationism doesn't qualify as a scientific theory" already shows how closeminded you are towards researching the opponants theory (since he doesn't have one). What will your response be to "Explain your credentials and how do you know that God was not present during the creation"?. The answer of "I don't know" is going to be met with jubilation because, well, he just beat you at a debate.

You're utterly missing the point. You are arguing from ignorance. Do you understand that this is completely fallacious???

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by Mongrel
1) It tries

2) Yes it can, just because we weren't there or can't manage to do it in a lab doesn't mean it's impossible.

3) You ought to check which version of theory the scienctists are using. Talk Origins has a nice section on it

3a) Abiogenesis is not Evolution. Evolution can only happen when you have a living molecule.

4) All very well saying the "God was the Catalyst" but the I like about Science is that tries to answer questions, as an example..
How do you explain antibiotic resistance in germs?
ID'r\Creationist - God obviously wanted it that way.
Scientist - Hmmm, good question. Let me look into it and get back to you.

Simplified? Yes, but it gets the point across.

One of the main niggling points I find (being a non-scientist) is that the majority of people who decry evolution do not have the right qualifications. They have many figureheads who can come up with a degrees the length of your arm but none of them relevant to the fields of evolutionary Biology (very few from any of the Biology fields).

To quote Lenny Flank (http://www.geocities.com/lflank/), from his numerous posts over at The Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/) What is the scientific theory of ID, and how we can test it using the scientific method?"

No ID supporter has proposed an answer yet

That's what I am trying to say (BTW I linked to Talk Origins earlier with a breakdown of the creationist categories). Your argument must include refutiations of his theories. If you go into a debate assuming this man (1) does not believe in evolution, (2) believes science is a fallacy, and (3) will crumble at your scienfific prowess, you could be wrong on all three assumptions. And a skeptic doesn't make assumptions...

My bet is this man knows your material better than you do. And, I'm guessing he's got a better argument against "argument from ignorance". I bet he has facts that you are not aware of, either true or filtered. And, if they are filtered or fractured, you're not going to have the resources immediately available to argue against them.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
And, I'm guessing he's got a better argument against "argument from ignorance".

Listen, nitwit, argument from ignorance is FALLACIOUS. Period. End of freakin' story. How about you stop ranting for an hour or so, and LOOK IT UP.

Do you know the moon is not made of green cheese? No? See, therefore it is made of green cheese unless you can prove otherwise.

Jes** H dumb as boiled gravel Chr**t

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
You're utterly missing the point. You are arguing from ignorance. Do you understand that this is completely fallacious???

Oh, for the love of....

I am not arguing any theories. I am saying that any argument made against this man should be made UNDERSTANDING what he is arguing. It's called the rules of debate. Nothing to do with science.

Edit: Billy, go ahead and debate this guy with none of his background material or references to his personal beliefs. You can stand there all day saying "argument from ignorance", and you'll lose the debate. If you offer no counterpoints to his claims, it's over. Then, I'm guessing you're gonna end up just insulting him. Your mom needs to hug you more. :D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Oh, for the love of....

I am not arguing any theories. I am saying that any argument made against this man should be made UNDERSTANDING what he is arguing. It's called the rules of debate. Nothing to do with science.

Debate is NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS, you nincompoop. Go thump a bible against someone's head who cares. If you are really interested in the topic, then LOOK UP THE FALLACIES TO UNDERSTAND you are full of cow dung.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by wastepanel
(1) I am not missing the point. Do you know what theory the man issuing this challenge is going to argue?
He's probably going to make lots of arguments from ignorance.

If you looked at the different forms of creationism, you would notice that the theory taught by the Protestant and Catholic religion is (gasp) evolution exists, but God started it all or oversaw it.
A claim they need to provide evidence for.

Now, if you have prepared all this evidence to argue a creationist that evolution does exist, you're done.
Depends on the creationist, but we've got the evidence ready, since science is supposed to be able to back up its claims at any time.

You say he is giving an "argument from ignorance". The creationist will ask for you to disprove his theory. You can't.
Shifting burden of proof: It's his theory, he's the one who has to prove it.

He asks you for your theory. Whatever theory you throw out will be met with the same hostility you have placed on his theory. BECAUSE NEITHER SIDE CAN SAY DEFINATIVELY!
Skeptics don't have theories. I don't have a theory about the formation of the universe because I don't have evidence. I could, however, try to come up with testable hypotheses, which can and should be exposed to the same standards.

(2) I am not arguing for either theory. My point is why go into an argument with someone that has knowledge of both sides of the debate without knowing what he is going to argue?
To try and find out more about the universe. Unfortunately, there's nothing to be known about creationism. It isn't scientific because they refuse to devise testable hypotheses.

It's not science, it's common sense. You're quote of "We're not arguing theories, since creationism doesn't qualify as a scientific theory" already shows how closeminded you are towards researching the opponants theory (since he doesn't have one).
Creationism doesn't have testable hypotheses. (I'm willing to be proven wrong: Submit a testable creationism hypothesis.)

What will your response be to "Explain your credentials and how do you know that God was not present during the creation"?. The answer of "I don't know" is going to be met with jubilation because, well, he just beat you at a debate.
More shifting the burden of proof.

I don't even need to have a theory of my own. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. He loses the debate because he hasn't even brought in a testable hypothesis, much less any evidence. A skeptic, like a defendant in court doesn't have to "win". He just has to make sure that the advocate/prosecutor is unable to prove his case.

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by wastepanel
(1) I am not missing the point. Do you know what theory the man issuing this challenge is going to argue?

Please do explain the scientific theory of creationism to me, I've never heard it before.


If you looked at the different forms of creationism, you would notice that the theory taught by the Protestant and Catholic religion is (gasp) evolution exists, but God started it all or oversaw it.


That's not a theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)


Now, if you have prepared all this evidence to argue a creationist that evolution does exist, you're done. You say he is giving an "argument from ignorance". The creationist will ask for you to disprove his theory. You can't. He asks you for your theory. Whatever theory you throw out will be met with the same hostility you have placed on his theory. BECAUSE NEITHER SIDE CAN SAY DEFINATIVELY!


I don't have to disprove his "theory" (please look it up, and while you're at it, look up "scientific method" as well). He makes a claim, he has to prove it.


(2) I am not arguing for either theory. My point is why go into an argument with someone that has knowledge of both sides of the debate without knowing what he is going to argue? It's not science, it's common sense.


Yes.


You're quote of "We're not arguing theories, since creationism doesn't qualify as a scientific theory" already shows how closeminded you are towards researching the opponants theory (since he doesn't have one).


So you claim that creationism is a scientific theory?


What will your response be to "Explain your credentials and how do you know that God was not present during the creation"?. The answer of "I don't know" is going to be met with jubilation because, well, he just beat you at a debate.

Ah, that's the core of the problem. I never claimed that "God wasn't present during the creation". The theory of evolution doesn't make any claims about god. Nor do my credentials have anything to do with gods existance.

[wastepanel]

Chill Bill.

If you happened to look at anything besides the word "creationist" in my post, you would see that I am not arguing for one or the other. I was pointing out how to properly debate this man. I am not bible thumping bud. If you're gonna enter a debate (which is what this topic is about, not which "theory" is correct), you better know your material and his material to successfully argue your point. Otherwise, how would you prepare for it?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Chill Bill.

If you happened to look at anything besides the word "creationist" in my post, you would see that I am not arguing for one or the other. I was pointing out how to properly debate this man. I am not bible thumping bud. If you're gonna enter a debate (which is what this topic is about, not which "theory" is correct), you better know your material and his material to successfully argue your point. Otherwise, how would you prepare for it?

Bullsh*t, wastepaper. You're transparent. Now would you care to understand:

Logic,
Science
Burden of proof

or any of the zillion points you're trying to traipse over? Or are you just going to keep on this fundy-in-skeptics-clothing ruse? I've no time for your crap.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Chill Bill.

If you happened to look at anything besides the word "creationist" in my post, you would see that I am not arguing for one or the other. I was pointing out how to properly debate this man. I am not bible thumping bud. If you're gonna enter a debate (which is what this topic is about, not which "theory" is correct), you better know your material and his material to successfully argue your point. Otherwise, how would you prepare for it?

I certainly agree that if you are going to debate, you should know your material. Though, from what I've seen they keep the scientists on the defensive. I wonder if anyone has countered with a challenge for them to produce a testable hypothesis, or what "research" the ID/creationist people have actually done (none as far as I can tell.)

I share bill's frustration with this, because science isn't decided in a formal debate, and while dissent is welcome in peer review, it is not a forum for open debate and challenges.

However, you are correct, you're not bible thumping, and we appreciate that :)

[wastepanel]

Then why do you keep answering my posts, billyboy?

Forget creationism.

Let's talk a social debate. Let's say you were running for President. Your opponant says that he has the cure for poverty in this country. You honestly can tell me you're gonna stand up there, offer no refutiations against his plan, and say it all is a theory and not practical?

That is what this is. Same rules. Debates are backed up with facts for both sides. This debate is not going to definatively say one theory is right. It is grandstanding. Once you understand that, you might get my point.

EDIT: Posted this before fowl backed my statements. I am not insulting any of you (except maybe billy cause he started it) by stating the rules of a social debate. I am not questioning anything about science or religion. A skeptic doesn't need to be hostile, just question assumptions. But, since some of you have hostility towards this subject, you are not even getting the meaning of the words surrounding the word "creationism". My whole point is this:

(1) This subject cannot be answered in a debate for either side.

(2) If you are going to attempt to argue it, don't argue with insults or your ignorance of the other "theory". Research it, and break it down. If it's fallous, then it will crumble.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Let's talk a social debate. Let's say you were running for President. Your opponant says that he has the cure for poverty in this country. You honestly can tell me you're gonna stand up there, offer no refutiations against his plan, and say it all is a theory and not practical?
Does he have evidence that the cure works? If not, why bother refuting it? We can just dismiss it. If so, we examine the evidence.

That is what this is. Same rules. Debates are backed up with facts for both sides. This debate is not going to definatively say one theory is right. It is grandstanding. Once you understand that, you might get my point.
When it comes to things without evidence, science doesn't have a side. That doesn't absolve creationism from having to prove its case.

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Then why do you keep answering my posts, billyboy?

Forget creationism.

Let's talk a social debate. Let's say you were running for President. Your opponant says that he has the cure for poverty in this country. You honestly can tell me you're gonna stand up there, offer no refutiations against his plan, and say it all is a theory and not practical?

That is what this is. Same rules. Debates are backed up with facts for both sides. This debate is not going to definatively say one theory is right. It is grandstanding. Once you understand that, you might get my point.

1. Science isn't a democracy. The rules are very different.
2. Nobody in this thread said that one shouldn't prepare before debating, I don't know where you've got that from.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Then why do you keep answering my posts, billyboy?

Forget creationism.

Let's talk a social debate. Let's say you were running for President. Your opponant says that he has the cure for poverty in this country. You honestly can tell me you're gonna stand up there, offer no refutiations against his plan, and say it all is a theory and not practical?

That is what this is. Same rules. Debates are backed up with facts for both sides. This debate is not going to definatively say one theory is right. It is grandstanding. Once you understand that, you might get my point.

One more time, wastepaper, SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK THROUGH DEBATE. One more time, wastepaper, THE TRUTH IS NOT DECIDED BY POPULAR VOTE. One more time, wastepaper, CREATIONISM DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A THEORY.

DO YOU NEED ANY OF THESE POINTS BACKED UP, wastepaper, OR ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE TO BLITHELY IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN HERE??

This is not politics. This is not rhetoric. Science departed from philosophy centuries ago because it found rhetoric and debate to be nearly immaterial to the process of finding truth.

Have you yet looked up the fallacies>?

[Martin]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Do you know what theory the man issuing this challenge is going to argue?

Yes. If you're so eager to argue about it, why can't you say the same?

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
This is from a creationist book that challenges evolutionists (scientists) to a written debate as such:

Introduction

The following offer is for a written, scientific debate on the creation-evolution issue. It addresses a longstanding desire by the public for a comprehensive and understandable comparison of the two main explanations for how everything began—a heated issue in which little constructive dialogue has occurred. Scientific disagreements can and should be discussed without acrimony.

Notice several things about this sincere and fair offer on pages 347–348. Evolutionists who disagree with these proposed debate procedures but wish to participate can propose their own suggestions for a written, strictly scientific debate. They must sign a statement, as I will, that they will abide by the editor’s decisions resolving disagreements about debate procedures.

However, the debate must be restricted to science and avoid religion, a broader, more complex, and less-structured subject. (Because I am not a theologian, I will not debate those topics. My focus is on the scientific evidence relating to origins.) Scientific methodology is also better understood by more people. Indeed, methods for reaching religious conclusions are diverse, subjective, and cultural. Religious disagreements have been with us for thousands of years. A purely scientific debate will be broad enough.

Many can participate on the evolutionist side. Only the lead evolutionist must hold a doctorate in either applied or basic sciences. Those who wish to participate but have no formal qualifications may recruit a lead evolutionist and offer their services to the evolutionist side. (A lack of recognized qualifications does not mean a person has nothing to contribute. However, without them, many readers might dismiss that side’s case or blame a poor performance, not on a weak case, but on a lack of scientific qualifications.)

Once a lead evolutionist agrees to participate, we will search for and select an editor associated with a large, neutral publisher. I am confident many publishers will be interested. Those invited may conclude that one or both sides have not demonstrated the ability to produce a credible, unemotional, and thorough case, understandable to most readers. If so, sales of the final, book-length debate would suffer. This, after all, is a publisher’s main concern. Editors and publishers may also conclude that one side is unprepared to address all relevant disciplines in the creation-evolution issue: life sciences, astronomical sciences, earth sciences, physical sciences, and their many subdisciplines. If so, the editor and publisher might ask one side to add qualified people to its side or withdraw.

The editor/publisher may require both sides of the debate to sign a contract to complete the manuscript as described in this offer. Because the publisher has “first right of refusal� and makes no commitment to publish the completed debate, the publisher has much to gain with no risk.

Walt Brown

http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ420.html#wp1185921

I can sense a trap here, especially since creationists are involved. I have to wonder, has anyone accepted this or is this pretty much treated as a nonsense challenge?

For all of those writing writing about that bad "creationism" word...

This is what the thread was about.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by wastepanel
For all of those writing writing about that bad "creationism" word...

This is what the thread was about.
It doesn't matter for me: My objections are identical.

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Wow....didn't know Christians were so untrustworthy. Some of these creationists are loons, but others can bring some valid arguments to the table. If someone is willing to debate the subject based upon science and not religion, keep the correspondances on file and refute the published events. My prediction is this will happen:

(1) A heated discussion will take place.

(2) Both sides are gonna get their feathers ruffled.

(3) Creationist will finish his/her argument with "But science cannot explain the following phenomenon..."

(4) Skeptic will say you can't jump to conclusions to make creationism correct.

(5) Both sides will still think the other side is incorrect.

None of us have the answers to the debate. A discussion is not going to solve that.

The problem that I find is that there are thousands and thousands theories regarding creationism. Which theory will be argued? Is the creationist going to jump theories in mid-discussion to make an argument valid?

Don't discount a creationist's arguments because that person believes in God. Discredit the theory with a valid argument. If the creationist stumbles, point it out. If it's a valid argument, let it be.

And this was my original statement.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
For all of those writing writing about that bad "creationism" word...

This is what the thread was about.

It is you who missed all the very germane responses. Go back to my first few posts here, wherein I directly addressed the "trap" issue. I'm sure you'll get similar responses from several other posters.

[Martin]

Originally posted by wastepanel
For all of those writing writing about that bad "creationism" word...

This is what the thread was about.

Yes. It's about Walt Brown's pseudoscientific YEC nonsense, which bears absolutely no relation to the concept that God created using the natural processes that science has discovered. Bringing up the latter as if it had anything to do with the former is equivocation, and it's why you're getting harsh replies. Try to understand what the thread's actually about.

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
It is you who missed all the very germane responses. Go back to my first few posts here, wherein I directly addressed the "trap" issue. I'm sure you'll get similar responses from several other posters.

Did you read my original posts? What I was saying is that this guy could trap you, or he could hit you with scientific facts to make his theory seem more plausable. How about we take a little look his website:

Walt Brown Website (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/)

Oh look! He's got a bunch of scientific theories there. Oh, I thought he was going to just argue there was a God. Hmmm...maybe I should read his theories SO I CAN REFUTE THEM!!!!

I don't care if anyone thinks creationism is correct. It's called research then dismiss. If it's incorrect, it's incorrect. It doesn't matter. I never said creationism is correct. I said if you're going to debate, then why don't you level the playing field and know his stuff too...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Did you read my original posts? What I was saying is that this guy could trap you, or he could hit you with scientific facts to make his theory seem more plausable. How about we take a little look his website:

Walt Brown Website (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/)

Oh look! He's got a bunch of scientific theories there. Oh, I thought he was going to just argue there was a God. Hmmm...maybe I should read his theories SO I CAN REFUTE THEM!!!!

I don't care if anyone thinks creationism is correct. It's called research then dismiss. If it's incorrect, it's incorrect. It doesn't matter. I never said creationism is correct. I said if you're going to debate, then why don't you level the playing field and know his stuff too...

Strawman fallacy. Your tactics suck wind, fundie. Have you looked up fallacies yet? Any idea what I'm talking about? Get your finger out of your ears. Maybe you'll hear better.

[Bronze Dog]

Okay... Here's one from that site.
42. The Validity of Thought

If life is ultimately the result of natural processes or chance, then so is thought. Your thoughts—including what you are thinking now—would ultimately be a consequence of a long series of irrational causes. Therefore, your thoughts would have no validity, including the thought that life is a result of chance or natural processes.
Big non-sequitur from my point of view.

By destroying the validity of ideas, evolution undercuts even the idea of evolution. “Science itself makes no sense if the scientific mind is itself no more than the product of irrational material forces.�
How'd we jump from "material" to "irrational"? More non-sequiturs.

A related issue is the flexibility and redundancy of the human brain, which evolution or natural selection would not produce.
Argument from ignorance.

For example, every year brain surgeons successfully remove up to half of a person’s brain. The remaining half gradually takes over functions of the removed half. Also, brain functions are often regained after portions of the brain are accidently destroyed. Had humans evolved, such accidents would have been fatal before these amazing capabilities developed. Darwin recognized an aspect of this phenomenal capability of the brain.
So what?

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Strawman fallacy. Your tactics suck wind, fundie. Have you looked up fallacies yet? Any idea what I'm talking about? Get your finger out of your ears. Maybe you'll hear better.

FOR THE LAST TIME, I AM NOT ARGUING A SIDE HERE! Nice tactic, by the way, of resorting to insults and not forming a valid argument against my statements that agree with yours. You're a petty man, sir. You are not even arguing about my statements. You are arguing a theory that I could care less about right now. I am not posting to argue about creationism. I was stating the rules of a debate if one should enter.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by wastepanel
I was stating the rules of a debate if one should enter.
No, you're not: You're trying to legitimize logical fallacies.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
No, you're not: You're trying to legitimize logical fallacies.

That, and posting disingenuously which, as you can tell, irks me to no end.

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
Okay... Here's one from that site.

Big non-sequitur from my point of view.


How'd we jump from "material" to "irrational"? More non-sequiturs.


So what?

Hey...that is a good argument. If you watch closely, Bronze will disect this theory and be prepared when confronted with these arguments.

BTW, not saying this crap is correct. I simply did a google search to find this site to see if he listed what his arguments would be.

[Mongrel]

From his website (my bold) Walt Brown received aPh.D. in mechanical engineering from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science.

Would Walt trust an Evolutionary Biologist to design and build a bridge? I'm sure he studied long and hard for that PhD (not sarcasm) so why does he attempt to trivialize the required time and effort to obtain a similar level in Biology?

[BillHoyt]

Response from Eugenie Scott (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-14-evolution-teach_x.htm)

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
That, and posting disingenuously which, as you can tell, irks me to no end.

And what would make you think that Bill? I didn't do anything except agree with your original post. You jumped me.

[SwissSkeptic]

My head hurts after looking at this website. :bricks:

And wastepanel, do the rules of debate as stated by you include logical fallacies as legitimate debate tactic or not?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Hey...that is a good argument. If you watch closely, Bronze will disect this theory and be prepared when confronted with these arguments.

BTW, not saying this crap is correct. I simply did a google search to find this site to see if he listed what his arguments would be.
I was prepared long, long ago. Just read all the links on this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Logical_fallacies) and you'll be similarly prepared. Thus far, you're no different from what I've seen from this guy: All logical fallacies, no substance.

Strike that: I haven't seen him try to legitimize logical fallacies by special pleading the topic onto a "social debate" table, as if it was any different from debates in the lab. Arguments rely on logic, and logic stays the same, regardless of where you are.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
And what would make you think that Bill? I didn't do anything except agree with your original post. You jumped me.

See SwissSkeptic's response. You've evaded every objection raised, including those pointing out the fundamental logical fallacies. This is disingenuous posting, which identifies you as either quite deluded, or a shill, or both. Perhaps you'd care to identify another alternative to this conclusion?

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by SwissSkeptic
My head hurts after looking at this website. :bricks:

And wastepanel, do the rules of debate as stated by you include logical fallacies as legitimate debate tactic or not?

No, they do not. But I am not debating this guy or his side. That is why I said to see what he is going to say, and break down his theories. If he is willing to debate this, my guess is that he will be using his opponants material against him. If you break his theory with facts, and don't let him assume items (such as the existance of God), you win.

Billy: Haven't forgot about you. Nice article. I believe that creationism should not be taught in school. Like I have said, there are thousands of theories out there for the Christian religion, and thousands more for any other religion. It has no place in school.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by wastepanel
No, they do not. But I am not debating this guy or his side. That is why I said to see what he is going to say, and break down his theories. If he is willing to debate this, my guess is that he will be using his opponants material against him. If you break his theory with facts, and don't let him assume items (such as the existance of God), you win.

Billy: Haven't forgot about you. Nice article. I believe that creationism should not be taught in school. Like I have said, there are thousands of theories out there for the Christian religion, and thousands more for any other religion. It has no place in school.


So why not go on the attack when debating and have the creationist/IDer defend their research and their peer reviewed studies.

Oh wait, thre is none.

Debate over.


:D

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
No, they do not. But I am not debating this guy or his side. That is why I said to see what he is going to say, and break down his theories. If he is willing to debate this, my guess is that he will be using his opponants material against him. If you break his theory with facts, and don't let him assume items (such as the existance of God), you win.

Billy: Haven't forgot about you. Nice article. I believe that creationism should not be taught in school. Like I have said, there are thousands of theories out there for the Christian religion, and thousands more for any other religion. It has no place in school.

Through a series of encounters with you, wastepaper, you've continued to look like a shill. Are you ever going to change that perception by directly addressing, without use of logical fallacies, the points made here?

Didn't think so. :o

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by fowlsound
So why not go on the attack when debating and have the creationist/IDer defend their research and their peer reviewed studies.

Oh wait, thre is none.

Debate over.


:D

Very good point. Again, as soon as that is shown, debate over. But this guy has other "followers" to legitamatize his "facts". Hence, you are going to need to discredit his "peers" with your peers.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by wastepanel
No, they do not. But I am not debating this guy or his side. That is why I said to see what he is going to say, and break down his theories. If he is willing to debate this, my guess is that he will be using his opponants material against him. If you break his theory with facts, and don't let him assume items (such as the existance of God), you win.
We don't need facts for most of these occasions: We just need to point out their inherent flaws, lack of testability, and lack of evidence. Strictly speaking, we don't need to do anything if they won't even sit down at the debate table. (They seem to prefer the propagandist's podium) For the benefit of the credulous, however, we need to point out their unwillingness and to educate them about logical fallacies so that they can think for themselves.

In short, we don't really need to debate them with facts: We can dismiss them by their own flawed logic.

Billy: Haven't forgot about you. Nice article. I believe that creationism should not be taught in school. Like I have said, there are thousands of theories out there for the Christian religion, and thousands more for any other religion. It has no place in school.
At least there, you're being logical.

[SwissSkeptic]

Originally posted by wastepanel
No, they do not. But I am not debating this guy or his side. That is why I said to see what he is going to say, and break down his theories. If he is willing to debate this, my guess is that he will be using his opponants material against him. If you break his theory with facts, and don't let him assume items (such as the existance of God), you win.

Do you realize that your last sentence assumes that it's possible to prove that god doesn't exist?

FWIW I don't think that there's anything for science to gain by debating creationists (see fowlsounds last post).

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
Very good point. Again, as soon as that is shown, debate over. But this guy has other "followers" to legitamatize his "facts". Hence, you are going to need to discredit his "peers" with your peers.
You don't understand the definition of "peers" here, do you? We'll add that to the ever-growing list of things you don't understand.

[wastepanel]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
You don't understand the definition of "peers" here, do you? We'll add that to the ever-growing list of things you don't understand.

My use of the word "peers" appears in quotation marks . Thus, I am saying that I/you/any logical person would also consider this person a "peer". This man assumes that all scientists are his peers, and that the ones that are willing to make the jump to his theory are also peers.

Why do you not get my argument here? It is not difficult to debate this guy if you go in stating facts and refuting his evidence. If you are unprepared, and naive to his theory, he could crack you upside the head. Next thing you know, you're going to be quoted on every fundy website with the caption of "The Ignorance of Science".

Go ahead and challenge him Billy. You're use of such imaginative insults such as "wastepaper" and "bible thumper" will obviously work well as he pelts you with theories you didn't even know he has. I wish I could be as cool as you. Skeptics don't have to resort to insults to win an argument. As$es do.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
FOR THE LAST TIME, I AM NOT ARGUING A SIDE HERE! Nice tactic, by the way, of resorting to insults and not forming a valid argument against my statements that agree with yours. You're a petty man, sir. You are not even arguing about my statements. You are arguing a theory that I could care less about right now. I am not posting to argue about creationism. I was stating the rules of a debate if one should enter.

I addressed your statements, sir. Very first line. You continue to evade.

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by fowlsound
So why not go on the attack when debating and have the creationist/IDer defend their research and their peer reviewed studies.

Oh wait, thre is none. Oops, yes there is. There was a thread about it yesterday I think. Some guy managed to stick ID into some journal. Wait... you said study.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC+-+Scientific+Research+and+Scholarship+-+Science

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wastepanel
My use of the word "peers" appears in quotation marks . Thus, I am saying that I/you/any logical person would also consider this person a "peer". This man assumes that all scientists are his peers, and that the ones that are willing to make the jump to his theory are also peers.

Why do you not get my argument here? It is not difficult to debate this guy if you go in stating facts and refuting his evidence. If you are unprepared, and naive to his theory, he could crack you upside the head. Next thing you know, you're going to be quoted on every fundy website with the caption of "The Ignorance of Science".

Go ahead and challenge him Billy. You're use of such imaginative insults such as "wastepaper" and "bible thumper" will obviously work well as he pelts you with theories you didn't even know he has. I wish I could be as cool as you. Skeptics don't have to resort to insults to win an argument. As$es do.

I am insulting you, wastepaper because you have evaded every logical refutation run past you. You are, therefore, a time-wasting shill.

Science is not decided by debate
You show no understanding of "logical fallacy"
"Peer," even with scare quotes, is not the scientific meaning of peer.
"Theory," as used by you and other fundies, has little to do with the scientific use of "theory."

Either address these points directly or STFU. You are the a** here, quite clearly.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by ReFLeX
Oops, yes there is. There was a thread about it yesterday I think. Some guy managed to stick ID into some journal. Wait... you said study.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC+-+Scientific+Research+and+Scholarship+-+Science


They managed to show a movie at the Smithsonian too. That doesn't mean they actually have study to back it up. It is no more than pot shots taken at other people's work.

[Bronze Dog]

I skimmed the challenge in the OP. Didn't see what determines the winner.

Besides, science isn't done Hypothesis X vs. Hypothesis Y. (Which is begging to commit a false dilemma.) It's done Hypothesis X vs. experimental protocol/observed evidence.

[Jon.]

Originally posted by wastepanel
(1) I am not missing the point. Do you know what theory the man issuing this challenge is going to argue? If you looked at the different forms of creationism, you would notice that the theory taught by the Protestant and Catholic religion is (gasp) evolution exists, but God started it all or oversaw it. Now, if you have prepared all this evidence to argue a creationist that evolution does exist, you're done. You say he is giving an "argument from ignorance". The creationist will ask for you to disprove his theory. You can't. He asks you for your theory. Whatever theory you throw out will be met with the same hostility you have placed on his theory. BECAUSE NEITHER SIDE CAN SAY DEFINATIVELY!

The theory* you attribute to "the Protestant and Catholic religion", namely that "God started it all or oversaw it" is possible. However, so is the theory that nothing existed until last Thursday and everything, including us and our minds and memories, were created last Thursday with the appearance of having existed for much, much longer. So are innumerable other theories.

The problem is that there is no evidence for any of them. Any theory which can be advanced without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

*I am using theory here in the sense often given it by proponents of ID, namely "some scenario for what might have happened".

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
I skimmed the challenge in the OP. Didn't see what determines the winner.

As with all such ruses, ad populem

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by BronzeDog
I skimmed the challenge in the OP. Didn't see what determines the winner.

Besides, science isn't done Hypothesis X vs. Hypothesis Y. (Which is begging to commit a false dilemma.) It's done Hypothesis X vs. experimental protocol/observed evidence.

Actually, it is done NOT Hypothesis X (rev 1), NOT Hypothesis X (rev 2), Not Hypothesis X (rev3), until all such revs have been ruled out, leaving Hypothesis X standing.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Actually, it is done NOT Hypothesis X (rev 1), NOT Hypothesis X (rev 2), Not Hypothesis X (rev3), until all such revs have been ruled out, leaving Hypothesis X standing.
Legitimate nitpick noted. Thank you.

[ReFLeX]

Originally posted by fowlsound
They managed to show a movie at the Smithsonian too. That doesn't mean they actually have study to back it up. It is no more than pot shots taken at other people's work. But you know the IDers will be using this, so I thought I'd at least mention it. Although I implied that it isn't really a study.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Actually, it is done NOT Hypothesis X (rev 1), NOT Hypothesis X (rev 2), Not Hypothesis X (rev3), until all such revs have been ruled out, leaving Hypothesis X standing.

And this is where it can be mistaken for arguing from ignorance. It is not. The hypotheses in question are well-supported conclusions drawn from existing observations, and are eliminated when new evidence is found that the theories cannot support.

Arguing from ignorance is says "We don't know if X is true or not, X cannot be disproven, therefore it must be true." The reason we can't disprove X is that we don't know enough about X to say anything. Therefore we can't prove X either. And trying to fit facts into X until it appears true does not yield any useful information.

Scientific theory is not "theory" in the sense that it is guessing or conjecture, but it is a logical reason that accounts for observed facts, given the information at hand. If a heavy rock is observed to fall at the same rate as a tennis ball, that is a fact. If we conclude the rate at which objects fall is constant, then it is a theory. The theory accounts for the facts.