The Instigator
bladerunner060
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Muted
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

E v. C

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Muted
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,689 times Debate No: 30076
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (33)
Votes (4)

 

bladerunner060

Pro

Thanks to Muted for accepting this debate; I ask that any concerns with the setup of this debate be asked in comments or PM prior to acceptance, so that we don't wind up arguing over the form rather than the contents.

The proposition under consideration is:

"Resolved: It is more likely, based on the evidence we have, that the currently accepted cosmological paradigm (including evolution) is close to correct than that the YEC position is correct."

"Equally likely" is agreed on by both debaters as an incorrect answer, thus, BoP is shared, and Con is expected to establish the greater likelihood of his case, and Pro is expected to do the same.

"More likely" in this case is, essentially "has more rational basis". Neither side will be expected to give an actual probability here; we're discussing which one has more rational basis to be called "closer to the truth" (with the understanding that the scientific paradigm has room for change and correction, while the YEC paradigm does not).

This debate will focus primarily on Evolution vs. Creationism, but since we're talking about Young Earth Creationism, Con has more to establish than simply a greater likelihood of Creationism; for the purposes of this debate, the only major other proposition that Con is expected to defend at the outset is the Young Earth one; due to the nature of Young Earth Creationism's conflicts with what is considered to be the scientific establishment, however, other issues may come up in the course of the debate.

It is understood that Con holds the bible to be inerrant, in keeping with the philosophy posted in this link:

http://creation.com...

However, no truth value is assumed in the debate without further evidence, though Con may be held accountable for any inconsistencies with that premise.

Both sides are encouraged to be as concise as possible; I've set this debate up with plenty of space, but we all know folks get bored with walls-o-text.

Having established these rules, I'll let Con go first to establish the preliminaries of his case; Con will leave the last round blank to equalize.
Muted

Con

I accept this debate and without further ado will begin. Firstly, the rules state that no truth value is assumed without further evidence. I take this to mean that both debaters have to argue from first principles.

I would like to remind voters to vote based solely on the arguments that will be presented forthwith, and not based on preconceived ideas, since this is a from-first-principle debate.

In keeping with the definitions, I am assuming a dichotomy in which there can be only two logical options. Creation (YEC), or Evolution. Arguing against one gives support for the other.

In my opening arguments, I will not present something as though it only supports my position. Instead, I will try to present arguments that compare the two models in regard to the evidence. I will only present two arguments in this first round, I might introduce new arguments in round two.

The first argument I will present is in regards to the genome.

C1: Genetic Degradation


The genome is known to be highly degradational. In fact, the vast majority of mutations is known to be degradational. Nachman has shown that [1] there are about 175 mutation events per generation. These mutation events do not calculate the number of mutated nucleotides per generation, but the number of events per generation. In fact, Sanford has shown that mutations, calculated in nucleotide changes per generation, is in the thousands. The number of degradational mutational changes in nucleotides per generation outweigh the beneficial mutations, counted in the same way. [2] (10:00)


Even without accounting for genetic noise, which prevents natural selection, most degradational mutations cannot be selected against. This is because the degradational effect of each single nucleotide is so small as to be almost negligible. This is much like small single letter changes in the above paragraph. Individually, they do not much degrade the information I am presenting. Combined, however, their effects is devastating in a way that would lead to extinction. So much so that evolutionary geneticist researcher has estimated just from mutation and recombination rates in the genome that humans would die out in the next 20 million years (Starting 2006) [3].


The paper in [3] only calculates Muller’s ratchet from the mitochondrial chromosome, which undergoes recombination during reproduction. When the entire coding portions of the genome is considered, ignoring the regulatory portions of the genome, the time to extinction is reduced drastically, as shown by Sanford in [4].

I hope the readers are still with me here. The second reason why degradational mutations cannot be selected against is that they are intrinsically tied with the few beneficial mutations through a phenomena known as linkage blocks. This theory states that during recombination, whole sequences of genes are “linked” together rather than each individual gene being separately passed down to the next generation.

This brief introduction to genetic degradation (Of which there is strong evidential support, as seen by my sources) leads us to consider two things.

The first is the question of which of the two models predict degradation. The evolutionary model cannot predict degradation. In fact, it predicts just the opposite! From the theory of common descent, we should expect that we would see more beneficial mutations than degradational mutations. (Note: beneficial and degradational do not relate at all to the environment, but are contextual strictly within the genome. See [5]) If there were more degradational than beneficial mutations, then it would be impossible for evolution to occur. In fact, it would not be possible for stasis to occur either (See next argument).

This then brings us to the comparative of Creation. Under this model, it is assumed that degradation has occurred since the (supposed) Fall of man. (I will put (supposed), and such words, in parenthesis around supposed time events of both models to ensure no truth value assumptions) From this view, genetic degradation is consistent, and is in fact a prediction, of the model.


So the evidence is much better explained under the Creation model for this topic.

C2: Living Fossils


In this argument, I will present one organism as an example. The others will not be mentioned yet. This animal is known as an Ostracod, and is “by far the most common arthropods in the fossil record” [6:9] Fossils of this animal have been found from the Cambrian to the present. This is a stasis of 425 million years [7].

Within this time period, all the most common organisms, like fish, mammals, reptiles, et cetera, have all evolved. All other than this little “seed shrimp.” This little piece of factual evidence (Of which there are many more similar examples) forces us to do a comparison.

Evolution predicts change over time. Perhaps in the case of this shrimp, it was so well adapted that it could survive without ever needing to change, thus exhibiting “evolutionary stasis.” This is a plausible answer, the only problem with this is that it makes the model unsinkable. To put it in simple unforgiving terms, I will quote Dr Werner, from an interview in [8].

“If you whole-heartedly believe in a theory, you will always be able to sustain that belief—even in the face of contradictory evidence—by adding a rescue hypothesis to that theory. For example, if a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to ‘explain’ living fossils this way: ‘Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.’ This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science.”[8]

The second point to note is that even if stasis had occurred, genetic degradation would have caused the extinction of that organism (population).

On the Creation model however, stasis is no problem, since from this model, organisms can never become something other than their “kind,” which God (supposedly) created. Thus, it should not be expected from this model that change so drastic as that from a small wormy creature to the current diversity we see would happen.


To Pro for this first round. I hope that I’ve not assumed anything outside of first principles. (Well, not so first, I’m not a textbook)

1. http://www.genetics.org...
2.
3. http://journals.cambridge.org...
4. http://www.amazon.com...
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://creation.com...
8. http://creation.com...
Debate Round No. 1
bladerunner060

Pro

Thanks to my opponent.

"...I am assuming a dichotomy...Arguing against one gives support for the other" is not true. In a shared BoP such as has been established for this debate, each side must not only rebut their opponent's case, but must also establish their own. While the terms of the debate made clear that "Equal" was a "wrong" answer, if I only successfully rebut all of Creationism's arguments, I have done nothing to establish the likelihood of evolution/old earth's truth, though it would only take one argument unrebutted to do so. In other words, if neither one of us fulfills our burden of proof, then nobody wins, and disproving evolution does not prove creationism.

I will also ask Con to not use videos for further sourcing for practical purposes. Moving on:

"The genome is ...highly degradational" is misleading, particularly in light of how Con uses it further down. Genome degradation is synonymous with genome reduction. While the genome can degrade, and while "sequenced genome data are practically biased toward small genomes"[1], it can also increase. For example, "...in the wild rice species Oryza australiensis, for example, amplification of three TEs accounts for a 2-fold increase in genome size."[2]

Con's second source is not reliable. However, "In fact, the vast majority of mutations is known to be degradational." -- does no harm to the theory of evolution. Evolution predicts that; this description of what actually happens does nothing to harm a theory that takes that into account. In fact, it does harm to the creationist theory: if god made every species exactly as we see them today, it would stand to reason that there would be no mutations.

I also ask Con to clarify what he means by "degradational"; again, as noted, genome degradation means the reduction in size of the genome, and it doesn't not appear he is using it in that sense.

"...genetic noise, which prevents natural selection..."

Genetic noise does not prevent "natural selection", and saying so is a completely unsupported proposition. Natural selection is nothing more than "the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers"[3]; it has been witnessed in action countless times. Also unsupported is this statement: "most degradational mutations cannot be selected against." Mendel was showing that selection happened in the 1800s for traits[3]; and anyone who owns a dog has seen the effects of selecting for traits. It happens. Natural selection is just when it's done naturally.

"... humans would die out in the next 20 million years (Starting 2006)..."

I can only read the abstract of that paper in Con's 3, due to it being a pay-to-read paper, but it clearly says that it's discussing "Muller's Ratchet", a known issue posited for asexual reproduction that, while it describes a specific pattern of events, has not been established through any studies as being consistent fact, and ignores back mutation. It also doesn't take into account the fact that many organisms that were once considered asexual are now known to exchange genetic material [4].

Further, that the paper might establish that the human race may go extinct does absolutely nothing to address whether evolution is true or not; posting it as though it's a fault with evolution is simply an appeal to emotion. Finding fault with a theory because of a prediction you don't like, as opposed to finding fault with it for making a prediction you know to be untrue, is not a legitimate way to reach the truth.

"degradational mutations cannot be selected against...they are intrinsically tied with the few beneficial mutations through a phenomena known as linkage blocks..."

This is, again, a blanket assertion with no basis in fact. While I can easily concede the fact that whole sequences of genes are "linked", that does not mean that all "degradational mutations" (by which I continue to assume Con means deleterious mutations) are always inextricably linked to "the few beneficial mutations" (by which I will assume Con means advantageous mutations). I concede that ones that are linked may not be selected against, but Con has not shown that that is always the case. Thus, deleterious mutations can be selected against; perhaps not all of them, but that would be perfectly in line with the theory of evolution and genetics as we understand it.

"The evolutionary model cannot predict degradation...it predicts just the opposite! From the theory of common descent, we should expect that we would see more beneficial mutations than degradational mutations."

That is simply not true. The theory of evolution only states that there will be both advantageous and deleterious mutations. It doesn't say anything about what their relative prevalence will be and, in fact, generally predicts that, due to the random nature of these mutations and the narrow window of "advantageous" compared to the relatively wide window of "deleterious", that there will be more harmful mutations than beneficial ones. "In summary, it is generally accepted that the majority of mutations are neutral or deleterious, with rare mutations being advantageous; however, the proportion of types of mutations varies between species." [5]

"If there were more degradational than beneficial mutations, then it would be impossible for evolution to occur..."

Con has, once again, made a completely unsupported assertion.

"Under this model [of creationism]...degradation has occurred since the... Fall... From this view, genetic degradation is consistent, and is in fact a prediction, of the model."

I believe I've shown how Con has misconstrued the evidence he has presented, and how the idea of deleterioius mutations does not, in any way, harm the evolutionary hypothesis. Based on the model being presented by Con, where deleterious mutations are a result of man's fall, one would expect to find NO advantageous mutations; as we do see advantageous mutations [6], the creation model fails to explain the topic sufficiently. It posits no mechanism further than evolution.

The fact that some species will not change over time means only, in evolutionary terms, that no beneficial mutations have occurred. Just as a dice roll may come up 6 many consecutive times and not invalidate the theory of probability, a few species lack of change over time does not invalidate evolution, no matter how many quotes Con posts that try to claim the contrary based on assertion. These so-called living fossils do need explanation, and the explanation we have is satisfactory.

"The second point to note is that even if stasis had occurred, genetic degradation would have caused the extinction of that organism (population)."
That which is asserted based on no evidence, can be dismissed on the same grounds, particularly since this "degradation" was established by Con.

"On the Creation model however, stasis is no problem..."

The creation model that Con has proposed also says that we should expect deleterious mutations, since they all come from the time of man's fall. Con has yet to provide an explanation for why different species are "degrading" at different rates, if there is a single cause, and Con has yet to explain why some species degrade and some don't. If Con proposes that this is a result of random changes, and that some will be beneficial but most won't, then Con concedes evolution, which is nothing more than that.

Con has spent this round mostly attacking concepts of evolution, and spent little to no time establishing his own case. As I've reached the character limit, I can't do much more.

[1] --http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] --http://www.hindawi.com...
[3] --http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] --http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] --http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] --http://en.wikipedia.org...
Muted

Con

Let me clarify my stance regarding the dichotomy and BoP. By arguing against one, I provide support for the other. However, the support is in no way firm unless I present arguments making it so. In this debate, I will address Pro’s arguments by small quotations instead of a long explanation of what I am rebutting.

“not use videos”
Willingly.

“Genome degradation is synonymous with genome reduction.”
This does no credit to my argument. I have already cited Cornell professor and geneticist Sanford, who uses the term genetic degradation interchangeably with genetic entropy. Remember that his book was in proof-reading stage before Nilsson et. al. published their findings. If one were to argue that Nilsson is older, it would only be older than the publishing date by ~two months. Secondly, it is important to note that the term “Genetic degradation” occurs nowhere in Nilsson et. al. Thus, Pro is arguing against a straw man. I will be using the term “genetic degradation” for the remainder of this debate, since it is historically used to refer to informational degradation rather than size reduction. The WP article on Muller’s ratchet has correctly identified “genome reduction” as “genetic shrinkage.”

“Con's second source is not reliable”
This is an assertion which relies on the “truth value” that creationist sources are unreliable. This is illogical for several reasons. (1): It does no credit to the fact that this is actually a creation-evolution debate, and I am allowed to use such sources. (2): Pro has only one peer-reviewed source, whereas I had multiple such sources. His source has no scientific input, whereas my source has reliable information from Prof. Sanford. This type of argument to authority is not fallacious, as per [1].

“if god made every species exactly as we see them today”
This is an incorrect caricature of the YEC position. The YEC position is much different, and I even elaborated on it in the first round. I will not do so here.

“Genetic noise does not prevent "natural selection",”
Perhaps I should have added the word “effective” before natural selection, but that would do no difference to the way the argument was treated. All of these statements are supported in either my round one’s (4) or (5). In fact, this idea of the “survival of the luckiest” has strong support even in the evolutionary community [2].

“Mendel was showing that selection happened in the 1800s for traits”
Pro does not understand my arguments here. I am not arguing that traits, as in phenotypes, cannot be selected against/for. I am arguing that the mutations in single nucleotide bases cannot usually be selected. The concept is equivalent to that of a car sitting in the open air to rot, as my R1 source (2) showed, with support from Prof. Sanford. Pro is arguing against a totally different concept which I do not in the slightest dispute.

“has not been established through any studies as being consistent fact, and ignores back mutation”
Pro has in this section repeated uncritically the Wikipedia article. It is unfortunate that the exact portions of his citation has a primary source in Wikipedia. I could easily use my wikipedia editor account to say that “Muller’s ratchet has been in recent years been debunked as pseudoscience.” I wonder if Pro would have copied that as well. The whole concept of Pro is that Muller’s ratchet only works in the case of asexual creatures. This is not so. In contrast, it works just as well for sexually reproducing creatures as asexual creatures.

“posting it as though it's a fault with evolution”
It is not that it is a prediction I do not like. In fact, even though I support the Creation model, it posits that humans would go extinct. It is not due to distaste or dislike, but in fact due to the fact that it opposes evolutionary changes, which cannot work with degradation of the genome.

“that would be perfectly in line with the theory of evolution and genetics as we understand it”
The whole idea of linkage blocks is that there is far too many degradational mutations within each mutation block. Selecting against one such linkage blocks merely means that it is exchanged for another one just as degraded. Arguing that it can be beneficial makes no sense. This point makes no sense.

“generally predicts that, ...more harmful mutations than beneficial ones.” “unsupported assertion”
The fifth reference of Pro, to an article on Mendel, does not at all contain the quote Pro attributes to it. This is the first error. It is, indeed accepted, that degradational mutations outweigh beneficial mutations, but that does not mean that it is a prediction of evolution. Saying that it is is worse than even evolutionary stasis. For evolution to work, it is a requirement, and therefore a prediction, that beneficial mutations in terms of genetic information must outweigh degradational mutations. Despite Pro accusing this argument of being unsupported assertion, he himself has no source either to back up his assertion or his statements. The argument has not been refuted or even addressed.

“Con has misconstrued the evidence he has presented”
I believe we are on different genetic pages. Pun intended.

“deleterioius mutations does not, in any way, harm the evolutionary hypothesis”
See my previous round, where I made mush of this. Source (4) has an even better explanation, but I believe mine is sufficient.

“one would expect to find NO advantageous mutations”
This argument is a caricature of the YEC position as well. In fact, it is the prediction that Pro has unsupportedly claimed that evolution makes that Creation makes. (See R1 source 2, which Pro wrote off.)

“the explanation we have is satisfactory.”
Pro has not even attempted to address the argument that evolutionary stasis is an oxymoronic term. “Evolution” in its simplest term, means “change over time” and stasis means “no change.” Satisfaction with an explanation does not prove its soundness. Pro has unfortunately broken his own rule of: “no truth value is assumed in the debate without further evidence.”

“Con has yet to provide an explanation for why different species are "degrading" at different rates”
The whole purpose of the arguments is not in relation to the rates at which they degrade, but that they degrade, period. As I have shown, Pro is using a wikipedia definition of degrade, which is actually supposed to be “shrinkage.”

I believe I have addressed everything of importance. I have established strongly through comparative evidence that the Creation model is a better fit to the evidence than the evolutionary interpretation. Pro has relied on a non-peer-reviewed definition of the term “genetic degradation” to argue against my R1 argument, and breaks his own rules, unfortunately.

Pro has provided no support for his argument that the evidence supports evolution. At most, he has argued against my arguments without establishing his own case. He has no arguments of his own. By assuming that evolution is true until proven false, he has broken the rule cited above which I took great pains to sidestep.

I would like for Pro not to use Wikipedia as a source when it is itself unsourced. I would also request that my position (YEC) not be caricatured.

Thank you for your reply. I hope for a better next round.


1. http://www.nizkor.org...
2. http://www.readcube.com...
Debate Round No. 2
bladerunner060

Pro

My opponent continues to believe that he can establish the truth of creationism by attacking evolution, saying "By arguing against one, I provide support for the other." This is a false statement. His further statement "the support is in no way firm unless I present arguments making it so." brings his ideas closer to the truth.

My opponent has yet to establish a single argument in favor of his motion.

I apologize for my mis-numbering; it should be obvious to the reader that the 5 should have been a 6.

As regards to my opponent's second source: I originally explained why it was not reliable but ran out of space. It was unreliable because it did not contain any actual evidence, only assertions. The fact that it was a creationist source was immaterial my complaint about it, rather, I was complaining because it was a source that made many assertions with no foundation, and the only thing I saw that it cited was something that I cannot reference. I did not watch the entire video, nor do I intend to, but the place at which my opponent referenced (10:00) was simply not a reliable source of information. This is part of the problem with video evidence, and why I asked that my opponent refrain.

This is in contrast to Wikipedia which, despite my opponent's claims, is far from "unsourced". I welcome him to scroll to the bottom of any page, where the "References" section is located.

My opponent complains several times about a perceived "caricaturing" of his arguments. He has not made any in support of his position yet, and has yet to actually say what his position is; it is therefore impossible for me to caricature it. If he would like to actually establish his position next round, I would welcome it.

He has also once again filled the text box, such that I cannot possibly make my argument and rebut his points. Thus, I will not be rebutting his points this round. Instead I'll be making at least part of my own case.

And so:

Evolution says that small changes happen. This is an undeniable, witnessed fact. It says that changes which hurt an organism will hurt its chances of reproduction and, therefore, make it less likely for that harmful change to be passed on, while changes which help an organism will help its chances of reproduction, and, therefore, make it more likely for that beneficial change to be passed on. We can, with trivial ease, duplicate both these things in the lab; no creationist can deny these thigns without denying evidence they could easily have before their eyes. Indeed, Con has already admitted that there are both beneficial and harmful changes to organisms.

Where the disconnect seems to occur is, that evolution says at a certain number of changes, an organism is sufficiently removed from its original state to be "speciated". This does not mean that the animal is so vastly different than its parents that it is unrecognizable, but rather that it has reached a point where it is different enough from the original species to be reproductively isolated.

The quesion is, how did this speciation occur? The Creationist, in particular the YEC, says, "There is a god. He created the world 6000 (+/-) years ago. He created every animal in basically its current form. Evolution doesn't happen."

What this ignores is that Evolution DOES happen. Provably, demonstrably so. The YEC, in rejecting evolution, is creating an artificial distinction between so-called "macro-evolution" and so-called "micro-evolution". The YEC draws a line at an arbitrary point and says "no animal can change, genetically, enough to get past this point". They establish no mechanism for that (and Con has yet to propose one). Perhaps it is so, but the YEC has no evidence to establish that it is so.

Science presumes consistency. We see that small changes can add up to big changes, and science has given us no reason to suppose that there is some line of demarcation that species cannot change past. Thus, science says that it seems most likely that the process of animals changing over generations continues until one, eventually, gets wildly different species. The YEC attempts to show how unlikely that is, but considering it's post hoc argumentation, it's quite a bit like trying to tell an arbitrary lottery winner they didn't win, because the odds of THOSE SPECIFIC NUMBERS coming up are astronomical.

In this debate, we're asked which is most likely closer to the correct answer. We know, for a fact, and even Con agrees, that some measure of evolution happens. So we must ask, which is more plausible:

That the universe is exactly as old as all the evidence shows[1], and that the mechanism we've already seen work on the smaller timescale of human life[2] explains the variety of species on the planet?

Or that a deity (whose existence Con has failed to establish), came down 6000 years ago (a timeframe Con has failed to specify or establish) and made first the universe, then all the animals in roughly the same form (or "kind") that they are now, and that they cannot change "kinds"?

Until Con establishes some kind of case for the necessary elements of his position, it seems clear that the most likely answer is the only one that has any evidence to support it, that is, an old earth, upon which evolution has produced many different species.

[1] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[2] http://www.talkorigins.org...
Muted

Con

“[Con] can establish the truth of creationism by attacking evolution”
As I said, there is a difference between providing support, and affirming it. Pro does not acknowledge the difference, which is not mundane.

“yet to establish a single argument”
Pro has yet to refute my argument regarding evolutionary stasis, which is firmly supportive and in favor of my motion. He has dismissed the argument simply because it contains a quote, and that the paradox is “satisfactory.”

“5 should have been a 6”
This means that you 5 is unnecessary. Why source it in the first place?

“it did not contain any actual evidence, only assertions”
The title of the series is “Creation Magazine Live.” The purpose of the show is to explain in layman’s terms that which is semi-technical, but peer-reviewed, and published in said magazine. If Pro wanted, he could easily have located the articles in question and would have seen numerous sources in support. The (10:00) I was referring to cites my (4) as a reference. My arguments tie together neatly. It is not only a reliable source of information, but an expert source of information, because it comes from the (retired) Professor Sanford, geneticist and primary inventor of the gene gun. This is not unreliable, since almost all GM foods are derived under his invention.

“Wikipedia...is far from "unsourced"”
Let me quote myself: “It is unfortunate that the exact portions of his citation has a primary source in Wikipedia.” From this statement, it is easy to infer that most portions of Wikipedia is sourced. Indeed, I myself use wikipedia, but only for statements that are sourced. Pro quoted an unsourced portion of the entry. Now, at best, he could argue that it references Muller’s original article, but that would be a missource because Muller definitely provides a reason for ignoring such phenomena.

“impossible for me to caricature it”
Let me once again quote myself: “organisms can never become something other than their “kind,” which God (supposedly) created” (I will not repeat allegations of rule breaking by Pro in the previous round, as he has done so again, I will just cite the new cases.) This is enough to show that kind=/=species, and that the statement that God created “species” is false. It is also apparent that by “degradational” I refer to the net effect of mutation.

Pro then goes on to provide supposed evidence for the evolution model. As my argument regarding stasis is unrefuted, and that regarding genetics is well defended, I will simply go to his arguments, but not in quote form. (Pro cannot complain that I filled the textbox, it was his idea to let me start)

Let me start with a brief overview of his argument. Pro repeatedly and undeniably breaks his rules. Over and again, we see that he does not begin from first principles.

Throughout the round, Pro uses a debate trick called equivocation. This, coupled with his extensive use of the fallacy of parts-to-whole, make his arguments easy to refute.

Firstly, let us go through the basics. Evolution and young earth creationism overlap somewhat. You see, to have a debate, we have to disagree about something. I suppose Pro would agree to that. However, this distinction of “micro-” and “macro-” evolution, was made in 1960 by an evolutionist philosopher by the name of Kerkut. He stated, and I quote,
“There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.” [1]

You see, the YEC do not deny STE, it is even part of the YEC paradigm. The YEC deny GTE, and that is what Pro is supposed to be defending.

Pro gives us numerous examples of STE, which nobody disagrees with, and claims that they support GTE. This is the fallacy that I refer to. By conveniently switching between the two theories, one of which is a subset of the other, Pro fantastically commits two fallacies in the same argument.

It is not the fact that no animals can be naturally altered genetically past a certain stage but that there is absolutely no evidence of such. It is the BoP of Pro to provide such evidence, aka. evidence of GTE.

Pro then goes on to break his own rule that “no truth value is assumed in the debate without further evidence.” Pro assumes that GTE is true, and expects the reader to assume so as well.

I will not directly refute his evidence in so many words, because to do so would be to take on an unrequired BoP which Pro is trying to shed on me. Instead, I will dumb down my arguments to the same level as his. Providing sources. Now all that matters is the quality of the source.

For the age of the universe, see these articles: [2], (Rightfully, this alone should be enough, but I will do more than this), [3], [4].

Speciation and the implications for evolution: [5], [6]

The thing about our sources is that all of mine are strictly peer-reviewed. I purposefully chose only that which is peer-reviewed.

On the other hand, Pro’s sources are popular science sources, or public edit sources. Now back to Pro. Please provide some evidence for the Grand Theory of Evolution, rather than assuming its truth and demanding I present evidence against it.

1. http://ia600409.us.archive.org... (p. 157)
2. http://creation.com...
3. http://creation.com...
4. http://creation.com...
5. http://creation.com...
6. http://creation.com...
Debate Round No. 3
bladerunner060

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for his response. Unfortunately, his conduct has reached frustratingly dishonest levels.

"Pro has yet to refute my argument regarding evolutionary stasis, which is firmly supportive and in favor of my motion."

No, it isn't. In the first place, Con has failed to MAKE any points about Creationism. He has failed to establish what he means by it specifically, what it predicts, or how we'd test for it. He has maintained it as a nebulous concept, all the better to equivocate himself, while claiming it is me doing the equivocating. How, specifically, does evolutionary stasis support Creationism?

As regards the quote: No. I said that the EXPLANATION we had was satisfactory. There is no paradox. A quote is meaningless if the argument is bad. Einstein could have said "Planes cannot fly, because nothing that is heavier than air can fly", this would not make it a true statement. And trying to claim that the equilibrium of an individual species is a "failure" of evolution is a ridiculous argument. Evolution relies on random changes, of which only the neutral or beneficial continue (in the broad sense). That some species wouldn't have beneficial changes, and/or wouldn't change much, is just a facet of probability.

If Creationism were true, however, I would expect a certain consistency, as there would be no reason, then, to have that element of randomness. Of course, as Con has not stated what his argument IS regarding Creationism, it is difficult for me to really know what I should expect.

"This means that you 5 is unnecessary..."
No, I referenced Mendel, I just gave listed [3] rather than [5].

As regards to the video, it is not my job to find the arguments in support. Con cited a video that cites a book, but doesn't give any contextual reason to believe either that the quote, itself, is relevantly in context, or that it is based on sound reasoning.

Further, that Professor Sanford has done good work does not excuse him from stepping into cosmology (a field he is NOT an expert in), nor does it mean he is always right; if this were the case, then all the scientists on the opposite side of the fence from him would be equally right, and therefore Con has conceded! Obviously, this is not the case. Con makes a simple argument from authority, and it fails on those marits.

As to Wikipedia, let ME quote Con : "I would like for Pro not to use Wikipedia as a source when it is itself unsourced."

"Indeed, I myself use wikipedia, but only for statements that are sourced. Pro quoted an unsourced portion of the entry. Now, at best, he could argue that it references Muller"s original article, but that would be a missource because Muller definitely provides a reason for ignoring such phenomena."

So, Con complains that I point out things that Muller ignores, then goes on to say Muller has reasons for ignoring such phenomena. That means that, 1, the point was valid, and 2, that Con is being disingenuous. If he concedes that the statement is true, complaining that it's unsourced (when it's a description of something) is ridiculous and dishonest. If he would like to provide Muller's reasons, he may feel free to post them in support of his argument. In the meantime, I ask him to stop being so fundamentally dishonest as to complain about sourcing when he agrees with the description. This is akin to a child who, when told he shouldn't have hit is classmate, says "I didn't do it! And anyway, I had a good reason for why I did it."

""impossible for me to caricature it"
Let me once again quote myself: "organisms can never become something other than their "kind," which God (supposedly) created" (I will not repeat allegations of rule breaking by Pro in the previous round, as he has done so again, I will just cite the new cases.) "

Stop. First of all, Con's conduct is insulting. What rule have I broken? Second of all, Con still has not made his case...this is one aspect of it ONLY, and one with an undefined term, no less. Upon what does Con base that? We know that change happens. Con conceded this. So now, it is up to Con to show why there is a point beyond which change cannot happen. And it is up to Con to define his "kinds" term.

"This is enough to show that kind=/=species, and that the statement that God created "species" is false. It is also apparent that by "degradational" I refer to the net effect of mutation."

Define Kind. Which you haven't done. Again, I repeat my demand: Make your actual case.

"As my argument regarding stasis is unrefuted,"

Con's argument regarding stasis is invalid. It does no harm to the evolutionary model. Con has continued to make assertions about what "must" be true for evolution, but has not established why the stasis of some species harms evolution, nor how the stasis of some species and the change of other species supports Creationism.

As regards to filling the text box, I'd point out that I specifically asked that we attempt to be concise. Instead, Con have consistently filled the box, making multiple argtuments to attack portions of the evolutionary model, while providing exactly zero evidence in support of Con's own model and, indeed, never actually providing his model.

I must demand Con stop attacking until he has made some semblance of a case for his own position; as has been noted several times, attacking the opposition does nothing to establish Con's case.

"Let me start with a brief overview of his argument. Pro repeatedly and undeniably breaks his rules. Over and again, we see that he does not begin from first principles."

It was, in fact, Con who mentioned first principles. And, Con as consistently not used first principles. I encourage him to look up what those actually are, because he hasn't used any, and his complaints about "rule breaking" fall so utterly flat as to make me question his honesty.

"Pro gives us numerous examples of STE, which nobody disagrees with, and claims that they support GTE."

While Con claims that there is a mechanism to prevent what he calls GTE, despite the fact that it is simple accumulation of STE. It is up to Con, who has conceded small changes, to prove HOW these small changes cannot add up to a large change, of "kind" (a word Con continues not to define).

"It is not the fact that no animals can be naturally altered genetically past a certain stage but that there is absolutely no evidence of such. It is the BoP of Pro to provide such evidence, aka. evidence of GTE. "

Nope. It is up to Con to establish specifically where that line is, and why change cannot happen past it, because that is Con's assertion. This is akin to someone claiming erosion on large geologic scales doesn't happen; we've shown it happening on small scales, but we haven't been able to see it on large scales simply because we haven't been looking for long enough. Of course, with erosion, there is no evidence of how the item looked originally, just that erosion has happened, yet with evolution we have an extensive fossil record showing changes over time.

For Con's next points:

Sorry. Between the insults, the false accusations of fallacy, and the false accusations of rule breaking, I'm having a hard time maintaining civility. Con, YOU accepted a shared BoP. Trying to claim, now, that there isn't one is fundamentally dishonest of you. You have the BoP of your assertions. You have yet to give ANY proof of them and haven't even made your case for your own position!

We know that Evolution, at some level happens. It is now up to Con to establish HOW it doesn't happen on a larger scale, if he hopes to argue that it is more likely that God did it.

It is also up to Con to establish an argument for why the standard cosmological view of the universe is unsound, which is necessary for YEC to be true. He has not done so.

It is also up to Con to establish an argument for God's existence. He has not done so.

Con has 1 more round to establish those points. If he has not done so, he has failed his burden.
Muted

Con

It is not infrequent that one would find straw man and the like in arguments against the YEC position. This does not translate to the false hypothesis that Pro is being disingenuous. Nor does the fact that arguing for the YEC position, qualify one to be labeled as a disingenuous person. Rather than entangling myself further in petty accusations and as such distracting from my main points, I will argue slightly against Pro, then restate my first arguments in a way that will take into account any and all of Pro’s objections. This will allow for a rebuttal to those points where Pro has not already addressed my arguments.

Firstly, what exactly is a “kind”? It seems that this word is causing vast confusion in the Pro camp. “Kind” is the English interpretation of the Hebrew “min.” “Bara” means “Create”. Therefore, “Baramin” simply means “created kind.” I will link to two articles on the subject, which should have been familiar to Pro. [1][2]

Pro claims that small changes as experimentally observed, changes that validate STE, will give rise to GTE. An assertion implies that it has no support or reason. The truth is quite contrary, however. In fact, this argument is made not only by YEC, but by evolutionists themselves. See [3]. At a conference comprising of some of the world’s leading evolutionary biologist, R. Lewin had this to say, “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” (Let me be clear on this point. The quoted persons are not YEC) So, the position that STE gives rise to GTE is one that is denied even by the experts that drive understanding of the GTE. Thus, Pro must present better arguments, even by his own standards. In fact, STE is part of the YEC position, so debating STE vs. YEC is odd because there is no debate.

My first argument relies on the either/or scenario. I first established, using multiple sources which were uncontested, that mutation driven degradation of the genome is a real and well recognized phenomenon in the genetics community. This is not a misconstruction of the data, or of the opinions of population geneticists.

Now that it has been established that I have not indeed misconstrued geneticists, let us reconsider the evidence. Muller’s ratchet is only one possible mechanism by which mutational informational degradation can and does occur. As shown by L. Loewe, Muller’s ratchet is not restricted to asexually reproducing organisms, but extend into the realms of humanity, which is exclusively sexually reproducing. This leaves us with the question of which model interprets the evidence better. A clear answer would be the YEC model rather than the GTE model. This is because if we extrapolate from the data a time to extinction, as Loewe did, and extrapolate into the past for the time of beginning, the dates match much closer to the YEC model than to the GTE model. This clearly is thus support of the YEC model rather than simply being an argument against a concept of evolution, of which tactic I stand accused. This is not a new argument, since it was made from the start.

The second argument is that of evolutionary stasis. The basic argument is that the YEC model much more easily accounts for the fossil without the need for such terms as “evolutionary stasis.” Now, I’m not saying that it is impossible for GTE to explain such a phenomenon, but that the YEC position is a much explanation of the data than the GTE, which is all this debate is about. Pro argues that stasis is not a problem, since change can come and go from time to time. The fact is, stasis occurs under the GTE model in periods of over 400 million years, something I mentioned in the first round. Quite simply, GTE postulates that change has occurred near uniformly throughout time. Thus, any form of stasis is a problem for the GTE, but can be explained very easily under YEC. (The idea of PE cannot explain stasis either.) So what is the YEC explanation? The YEC explanation is that there has been no GTE, which is in keeping with the data, and that all of life has remained within the confines of their “baramins” (See above)

As shown, in both of my arguments, the YEC model always fits the data better than the GTE model.

Now that the main arguments have been shown not to contain any intellectual dishonesty by either party whatsoever, we can turn our attention to the more trivial matters of allegations.

The most important allegation is the charge that I am dishonest. (The charge relating to WP is a charge that will be easily dismissed should Pro ever bother to carefully read my argument, which is complex for conciseness, something he asked for. Otherwise, it would be filled with caveats. As is, I made my point)

So, the charge is that I have not begun “from first principles” and as such is “dishonest.” This means that I have to build up my argument in rigorous proof from axioms. However, like I said in the very first round, “I hope that I’ve not assumed anything outside of first principles. (Well, not so first, I’m not a textbook)” My very first assumption was that the data given by the scientists whom I cited were correct. To be very very first, I would have to question the data itself (Impractical). From there, I explained in detail what exactly this entails for the genome. This is a strong proof of the validity of the phenomena, which I then argued fitted the YEC model better. (I apologize if no one understood what the YEC model was beforehand, that was not part of the “from first principles,” which only kicks in when I want to find “truth value [in] evidence.” So, my argument is good in this regard, and not in any way dishonest.

I will not elaborate on the second argument, due to space.

The second accusation is that I insulted Pro. This is trivial, and Pro should bring it up in the comments section because I do not perceive any insults from me.

The third accusation is that of fallacy. This fallacy primarily deals with equivocation and parts-to-whole (PtW). In summary, my accusation can be seen as stating that the idea that proving STE proves GTE is false because of PtW. As elaborated in this round, the idea is unsupported even among evolutionary biologists.

The fourth accusation is that of rule breaking. The rule cited above, about “truth value,” was not set by me, but accepted by me. I have already quoted portions where I believe Pro broke this rule, and I will quote the last portions of his argument, where I allege that he does so again, “up to Con to establish an argument for why the standard cosmological view of the universe is unsound...” By forcing me to establish such a paradigm, Pro relieves himself of his BoP, which is to prove it sound. This means that he is assuming the truth of the prevailing paradigm rather than giving “further evidence,” as demanded by his rules. Indeed, he has provided evidence for the STE, but not for the GTE. Any further allegations is out of the scope of this debate, and should Pro repeat them, shall be dealt with in the comments section. As easily seen, in no case have I been dishonest in the slightest. In fact, I have consistently sought to avoid such flame wars and be as open as possible. I feel the same can be said of Pro, but that does not avoid the fact that he has made a grave allegation.

With that, I would like to reservedly thank Pro for this debate, it has certainly shown me that the definition of YEC needs to be explicitly defined from the start of the debate rather than to assume that it is already known.




1. http://creation.com...
2. http://creation.com...
3. http://www.sciencemag.org...
Debate Round No. 4
bladerunner060

Pro

I thank my opponent for his participation in this debate, and remind him that his last round is to be left blank.

""Kind" is the English interpretation of the Hebrew "min." "Bara" means "Create". Therefore, "Baramin" simply means "created kind." I will link to two articles on the subject, which should have been familiar to Pro."

That is not only a definition which begs the question (Kind is "created kind", which presumes creation), but it also has no value in discussion here; Con has not defined "Kind" in a way that it could actually be applied. Is a Cat a kind? Mammal? We don't know; from Con we have only "kind means kind".

"Pro claims ..."

Again, Con needs to make actual arguments, rather than copy-pasta-ing quotes that are both taken out of context and have no supporting validity. Con has still failed to show how small changes do not add up to big changes, nor has he done anything to establish his case.

"My first argument relies on the either/or scenario..."
And is invalid. That some mutation is negative has never been contested, and does not harm the evolutionary theory. Con has consistently claimed that it does, but has given no reason why evolution, with its random changes, would preclude negative changes. As I already established, neutral or negative changes are both expected to be, and are, the majority of mutations.

"Now that it has been established that I have not indeed misconstrued geneticists..."

It hasn't.

"...let us reconsider the evidence."

Con's argument here has no merit. He presents none of the math he's claiming to use, and provides no support for why Muller's Ratchet provides no reason to "extrapolate into the past" in the manner he proposes.

"The second argument is that of evolutionary stasis. The basic argument is that the YEC model much more easily accounts for the fossil without the need for such terms as "evolutionary stasis." Now, I"m not saying that it is impossible for GTE to explain such a phenomenon, but that the YEC position is a much explanation of the data than the GTE,"

Con gives, once again, on reason for asserting this. He has not said what the YEC position actually is, beyond the "Goddidit", nor why this "goddidit" would explain evolutionary stasis more than evolution's current explanation, which is simply that the species in question are either not prone to mutations in the first place, or already suited well enough to their environment that very few beneficial and continuing mutations occur.

"Quite simply, GTE postulates that change has occurred near uniformly throughout time."

No. This is simply not true, and Con gives us no reason to suppose this. This is only yet another assertion Con makes with no evidence or reasoning.

"Thus, any form of stasis is a problem for the GTE, but can be explained very easily under YEC..."

Con continues to not define his terms or what he means by YEC. It's easy to simply wave one's hand and say "X is explained by Y", when you've never actually said what Y is.

"The YEC explanation is that there has been no GTE, which is in keeping with the data, and that all of life has remained within the confines of their "baramins""

The YEC explanation explains nothing about why some species have changed and some haven't. The evolutionary theory does.

"As shown, in both of my arguments, the YEC model always fits the data better than the GTE model."
Again, my opponent hasn't presented his YEC model! While evolution is generally understood, YEC is often un- or ill defined. By never actually defining even such simple terms as Con's "Kind", Con has created an impossible to falsify theory that makes no predictions and has no value.

"So, the charge is that I have not begun "from first principles" and as such is "dishonest."

Again, Con seems to ignore what I actually called him dishonest for:

1-Trying to avoid the Burden of Proof.

To quote him:
"I will not directly refute his evidence in so many words, because to do so would be to take on an unrequired BoP which Pro is trying to shed on me. "

And my response, directed at Con:
"YOU accepted a shared BoP. Trying to claim, now, that there isn't one is fundamentally dishonest of you. "

2-Complaining about a source's validity even as he acknowledges the content is true. He simultaneously complained that the WP article wasn't sourced well enough, and therefore the claim that Muller's Ratchet ignores certain things is to be questioned, but that Muller had good reason to ignore those things. Again, he agreed that Muller did even as he complained about a source that said Muller did.

Con has defined no terms, has failed to defend his cosmology, has presented no arguments for the existence of God, and has complained about being strawmanned while both not actually presenting a case and strawmanning evolution by making completely unsupported claims about what the theory "requires".

He has completely failed in his BoP and has, indeed, attempted to argue that he doesn't have one.

In short, Con has failed to present his case whatsoever, He does have a BoP, and he has completely failed in it. By choosing to do nothing but attack evolution, and never actually making a case, Con has not fulfilled his obligations.

While I am not an evolutionary biologist, I believe I have shown that evolution exists, and that it is up to Con to demonstrate his "kinds" hypothesis in order for it to be even considered as a limiting factor. Con chose not to do so. Evolution is not a perfect theory; few scientific theories are. And it will likely need to be adjusted as new facts and evidence come to light. But it is the best explanation for what we see, and Con has given no case why we should presume his undefined theory.

This final round is no place for a new argument. However, in closing, I'd like to sum up this debate with an analogy:

Imagine you find a hole in your wall.
"Well, it's the size of my child's fist", you reason, "So I think my child punched the wall."
"Not so," says your friend, "I don't think your kid is strong enough to punch the wall. It's much more likely the invisible unicorns".
"What makes you think there are invisible unicorns?"
"Well, your kid is just too young and too weak to punch the wall."
"Right, I get that. And he is pretty weak, so maybe he swung a toy or something, I'm not sure, but what makes you think it was invisible unicorns?"
"Well, can't you see that this wall has a hole in it?"

Perhaps it was invisible unicorns, but in order for that to be plausible, there has to be some support for the actual case.

Thank you to Con, and to the readers and voters.
Muted

Con

Blank is impossible, Therefore see this video for laughs.
Debate Round No. 5
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
bladerunner you should redeem yourself (in my opinion)! Let's do this debate!
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Do I really need to go on?

You never made an actual case for a young earth. You never even touched on God's existence, even when explicitly called to do so. I call you dishonest because I do not believe this was just a "mistake" on your part; I find it hard to believe you're foolish enough to actually think you can make a case for YEC without establishing those things. Further, you were specifically instructed to ask any questions PRIOR to the debate, then started making unfounded assumptions within the debate. These things are dishonest to me.

You were expected to make your own case, to show why there's ANY likelihood of your position. If you can't establish a Young Earth and a Creator, you can't possibly establish any likelihood of Young Earth Creationism. If you can't even define "kinds", how can you possibly assert that creatures can't evolve out of their "kinds"?

As I said in the debate, I can't rebut it until you actually MAKE your case. If you don't define "kinds", but you claim no species has ever been shown to go past its "kind", how can I show you the evidence you seek? You can trivially just say "That's not a different "kind", because you never defined the term!
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
And, of course, let's post some more:

I asked you to define kind multiple times. The best you came up with was:

"Firstly, what exactly is a "kind"? It seems that this word is causing vast confusion in the Pro camp. "Kind" is the English interpretation of the Hebrew "min." "Bara" means "Create". Therefore, "Baramin" simply means "created kind." I will link to two articles on the subject, which should have been familiar to Pro. "

That's not a definition of any meaningfulness. And I will not go to a source to make your case for you, it is up to you to define it. You didn't.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
Also: "In keeping with the definitions, I am assuming a dichotomy in which there can be only two logical options. Creation (YEC), or Evolution. Arguing against one gives support for the other. "

Is inherently dishonest, because it is completely untrue. And, again, you're either an idiot, or you're dishonest, for stating it. Further, I explicitly asked you to ask any questions PRE debate, so if you somehow thought this was at all legitimate, you could have asked. You didn't.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
And you still don't know what "first principles" are. Google them, perhaps that will help you.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
"Con has more to establish than simply a greater likelihood of Creationism; for the purposes of this debate, the only major other proposition that Con is expected to defend at the outset is the Young Earth one;"

You did not do that.

Muted: You took this debate on false pretenses. Rather than an exploration of the two sides of the debate, you proceeded to open with nothing but rebuttals and bare asseritons (It doens't harm MY side because I say so, but it destroys yours because I say so!). You never made an actual CASE, muted. You didn't defend a young earth. You didn't define your terms. You spent the entire debate cherry-picking scientific journals and making the claim that because you found something that, according to you, doesn't make sense, THEREFORE EVOLUTION IS INVALID AND THEREFORE CREATIONISM IS TRUE. However, that was not your burden; if you'd wanted to debate "Evolution is not correct", we could have debated that. Instead, we debated E v. C. And you never made an actual CASE despite a shared BoP. While I agree, that my case was weak, that was for 2 reasons: 1, you conceded in round 1 when you acknowledged that change happens, and never gave any actual reason for it to stop where you claim it stops (you never even defined Kinds, despite being specifically asked to. How could you possibly think you made a case, if that, which is central to your case as to where evolution "stops" or cannot go bast, HASN'T BEEN DEFINED), and 2, you presented a bunch of arguments against evolution. You may not like my responses, but since you never fulfilled your EXPLICITLY STATED BURDEN, to claim victory is dishonest. Or stupid. And I was giving you enough credit to say that you were at smart enough that you know better.

Again, to repeat:

"Con has more to establish than simply a greater likelihood of Creationism; for the purposes of this debate, the only major other proposition that Con is expected to defend at the outset is the Young Earth one"
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
A fascinating charge. Yes, indeed your charge of dishonesty is an assertion, and is neither backed by reason or support. All of what you mentioned in the debate has been properly answered. Claiming now that my arguments are "ridiculous" while dropping my arguments at the same time is frankly in my opinion highly facetious. I quoted from the debate, while you could not quote FROM the debate any rebuttal. This does not mean in any way that I am dishonest. If you ASSERT that charge just ONE more time, I will have to consider the person making the charge to be intent on smearing rather than debating. I am perfectly willing to debate the resolution that I am dishonest (To what use?), if you are willing to back up your case. You have a line of reasoning regarding the charges that I totally destroyed.
Posted by bladerunner060 4 years ago
bladerunner060
I addressed all of those things in the debate, Muted. I wouldn't debate you again; if I have asserted you are a dishonest debater, why the heck would I be willing to debate you again?
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
And I just have to say, your syllogism of my logic is amusing. :D
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Finally you begin arguing against my debate arguments. For the record, I do have replies, but if you want to see them, start a debate so that I could give proper attention to it.

You claim that I assert my case. An assertion implies that my argument has no support or reason. However, this is far from the truth. I had multiple peer-reviewed sources, while you had at most three.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
bladerunner060MutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I detracted my entire vote. Why? This is why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKcxqdfzAfQ
Vote Placed by Smithereens 4 years ago
Smithereens
bladerunner060MutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I much enjoyed reading this debate, Pro, in response to Cons material seemed a little out of his depth to me, while Con's arguments were rather messy especially at the end, I would confidently say that he ended up with the upper hand against Pro's rebuttals that didn't quite refute them, Con's argument on genetic degradation was more convincing that his argument on living fossils, mainly due to the fact that Pro's method of refuting using single sentences was doomed to fail, one cannot debunked an established scientific dilemma by focusing more on the argument it presents than itself as a supported hypothesis. It would have been better for Pro to consider gene degradation as an entire matter to refute in one shot, than by spreading it out into genetic noise, Muller's ratchet etc. I didn't like the sources used by either side too, Con used creation.com too much and Pro used wikipedia too much, both are secondary sources and should not be used in a debate as a good source.
Vote Placed by Wnope 4 years ago
Wnope
bladerunner060MutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments largely went over Pro's head. Pro failed to adequately address evolutionary stasis as well as genetic degradation. A cursory explanation of why negative mutations don't get selected is not sufficient.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
bladerunner060MutedTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: The arguments of con were good until later here both sides broke down a little and cons organization was not as good a before. Neither side gave enough convincing evidence to prove their point. The only thing I can vote fairly on would be sources. Con provided more citations - and more credible ones. Even though I disagree with the content, CMI is a scientific resource that opposes the evolution material and raises many good points. Although wikipedia is a good source, it was overly cited at first and I would hold CMI to be at a higher quality level. Pro used sources when needed later - as did con. Both used acceptable sources then. So with account for the first round of argument, I feel con wins 2 - 0.