The Instigator
TheSkeptic
Pro (for)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
InquireTruth
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points

The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis is a Reliably Predictive Model.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 12 votes the winner is...
TheSkeptic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,640 times Debate No: 5819
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (12)

 

TheSkeptic

Pro

[Defintiion - Reliable]
http://dictionary.reference.com...

-That may be relied on; dependable in achievement, accuracy, honesty, etc.

[Definition - Predictive]
http://dictionary.reference.com...

1. Of or pertaining to prediction: losing one's predictive power.
2. Used or useful for predicting or foretelling the future: to look for predictive signs among the stars.

[Definition - Model]
http://dictionary.reference.com...

-A systematic description of an object or phenomenon that shares important characteristics with the object or phenomenon. Scientific models can be material, visual, mathematical, or computational and are often used in the construction of scientific theories.

Since this debate topic is more detailed and focused, I will leave the 1st Round for any questions or additional rules my opponent may seek. Otherwise, I ask of him to give up the 1st Round, and we'll debate normally for the last 3 rounds.
InquireTruth

Con

Thank you for the opportunity to debate such a controversial issue. I accept the definitions but will henceforth refer to The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis as Neo-Darwinism. My opponent may now start with his opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
TheSkeptic

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this challenge, and I hope it turns out great!

Despite the usage of Neo-Darwinisim being incorrect on my opponent's part, I will follow along. From now on, The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis will be referred to as "ND".

Since ND is really just a synthesis of several biological ideas, I assume my opponent will attack the merit of the ideas it is based on. Or rather, he may take the rarely walked road, and tackle some tenets of ND.

-That natural selection is the main mechanism for change in evolution.
-Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes, recombination ordered by natural selection.
-All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists.[1]

There are other tenets, but these are couple of the major ones. I will let my opponent either attack evolution, such as speciation, fossils, or other basis of evidence it has; or perhaps he will attack the ND synthesis, and propose a different synthesis/ tenets that will more effectively account for evolution.

---References---
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
InquireTruth

Con

Beginning Notes:

I am happy to hear that my opponent will allow me the luxury of using the term Neo-Darwinism.

"Despite the usage of Neo-Darwinism being incorrect on my opponent's part."

Indeed it may be incorrect from its original usage, but you will find Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould are quite fond of using it.(1)

"and propose a different synthesis/ tenets that will more effectively account for evolution."

With due respect, and for the sake of clarity, it should be noted that in this debate I am under no obligation to present an alternative. Neo-Darwinism must stand or fall on its own merits. It is a basic illogical fallacy to assume the truth of something merely because of one's ignorance of an alternative.

Introduction:

I am a skeptic of the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution. The Neo-Darwinian theory looks much like a historical model (though even here it falters). It is not a reliably predictive model in that it does not supply convincing answers for relatively easy questions.
According to information gathered from Douglas Theobald's, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, It could, in theory – given the rate of darwins observed in the laboratory - only take as little as 20 years to forcibly evolve a species of mouse into a species of elephant. However, after constant refinement and plenty of time, evolution still appears to be a mere revision of the historical model rather than foundation for a predictive one.
If TheSkeptic is so assured of ND's predictive capabilities, why does he not find out what the fastest species-to-species evolution is and inform us when it is he can make evolutionary history by accurately predicting new species. The problem is these sorts of tests have already been done with fast-breeding creatures like fruit flies. Unfortunately, all that was got from such tests were mutated fruit flies. There was no expansion of the gene pool - no new genes or new traits. Evolutionists don't seem to understand that most of what they call successful "predictions" of past events are not empirically testable predictions, they are merely the confirmation of inferences.

This leads me to some questions and contentions:

1. Do you understand the difference between a historical model and a predictive model?

2. Where is your evidence that Neo-Darwinism is a reliably predictive model?

3. The boast of evolutionary science is that it is self-correcting; this is also an honest admission that it can be wrong at any given point. Given this admission, how can we trust that it is reliable?

4. Neo-Darwinism is not capable of standing up to the conventional definition of the scientific method of hypothesis, testing and replicable observation. If you disagree, please supply evidence where Neo-Darwinism was used as an accurate and reliable predictive model.

5. If evolution can forcibly produce an elephant from a mouse in a matter of 20 years, why has there been no such results in the over 150 years it has had to prove itself?

I look forward to my opponents response and evidence.
Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
TheSkeptic

Pro

"With due respect, and for the sake of clarity, it should be noted that in this debate I am under no obligation to present an alternative. Neo-Darwinism must stand or fall on its own merits. It is a basic illogical fallacy to assume the truth of something merely because of one's ignorance of an alternative."

--> My opponent seems to have misunderstand what I stated. I said he could do two things: either attack the evidence/merit ND is founded on (like every other scientific theory), or propose a different synthesis than ND. ND is really just a synthesis of several biology specialties that account for evolution. From his arguments, it's clear that he is attacking the validity of ND as a theory, and it will be my job to refute his points, and show why NS is a reliably predictive model.

~Counterarguments~

1. I assume you mean to say that evolution only describes the past, but it doesn't In fact, this is perhaps the thesis of your entire argument.

2. You see, many theories in science are simplifications., and thus they try not to account for many outside variables. You can predict the position of an orbiting planet, but you'll still be off since you can not account for smaller bodies in the system and their gravitational effect. Some theories are better at predicting than others. Evolution is about initial conditions, mechanisms, and perhaps outside factors that lead to diversity in life; predicting which mutations will happen and which traits will survive is impractical. Evolution has made some base predictions: we can predict that bacteria will get more and more resistant to any widely used antibiotics.

"Predictions of the past", of things in the past we didn't know of yet are also a use of NS as a predictive and reliable model. Using homologies from African apes, that the first humans arose from Africa. We have also found that organisms in heterogeneous and rapidly changing environments should have high mutation rates, such as bacteria in the lung.[1] There are many more, but the point is that ND has predictive power, and practical use. We have used NS for drug discovery and avoidance of resistance pests.

A fine example of ND's predictive power was it's role involving DNA. Genetic information must be transmitted in a molecular way that will be almost exact but permit slight changes. Since this prediction was made, biologists have discovered the existence of DNA, which has a mutation rate of roughly 10−9 per nucleotide per cell division; this provides just such a mechanism.[2]

3. Exactly what do you mean this boast by evolutionary science to be "self-correcting"? Science as a WHOLE boasts to be self-correcting; it's not a monopoly solely held by evolution. We all know the principles of falsification and such; these ideas help tarnish and solidify our theories we have now.

4. I have shown with my previous arguments how NS was used as an accurate and reliably predictive model.

5. Would you mind giving a link, or a source to this claim? It's quite hard to pinpoint your argument if I've never heard about it before, and there is no source.

---References---
1. http://www.talkorigins.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
InquireTruth

Con

"I said he could do two things: either attack the evidence/merit ND is founded on (like every other scientific theory), or propose a different synthesis than ND."

Actually you said attack AND Propose. I was simply stating that I am under no obligation to propose an alternative. It was merely a clarification if either you or the audience was misled.

"1. I assume you mean to say that evolution only describes the past, but it doesn't In fact, this is perhaps the thesis of your entire argument."
I'm saying that the so-called evidence for evolution is mere backtesting that confirms empirically untestable inferences. Let me give you an example. In Jeremiah 39:3, Jeremiah makes an astonishing "prediction" over 2600 years ago. He claims that Nebo-Sarsekim was with the Babylonian King Nebuchanezzar II at the siege of Jerusalem. Well it turns out that the British Museum recently displayed a clay tablet that confirms this and the Biblical timeline.(1) The timeline is the inference, and the tablet stands as confirmation. If this sort of confirmation of inferences is reliable, then you should also affirm the reliably of the Bibles historical timeline. All this notwithstanding, it would still only be a historical model – not at all a reliably predictive one.

2. "You can predict the position of an orbiting planet, but you'll still be off since you can not account for smaller bodies in the system and their gravitational effect."

And it is a reliably predictive model?

"Some theories are better at predicting than others."

Quite so, and this is what makes them reliable.

"Evolution has made some base predictions: we can predict that bacteria will get more and more resistant to any widely used antibiotics."

Of course bacteria becoming more and more resistant is merely an example of gene transfer and not the evolution that ND proposes.(2) This mechanism of exchanging DNA is necessary for bacteria to survive. While fascinating, it is not an example of evolution in action. New DNA being generated would be a more accurate example – but I know of no such examples to provide. Do you?

""Predictions of the past", of things in the past we didn't know of yet are also a use of NS as a predictive and reliable model."

Actually no. These are not predictions at all. That is why I put the parentheses around predictions. A confirmation of inferences that is not empirically testable is not a predictive model, it is a historical one.

"There are many more, but the point is that ND has predictive power, and practical use."

You are only confirming the sort of backtesting that I'm talking about. Bacteria mutating, like I said before, is a fascinating phenomenon, but it does not support the evolution of ND. No new genes, no addition to the gene pool.

"3. Exactly what do you mean this boast by evolutionary science to be "self-correcting"? Science as a WHOLE boasts to be self-correcting; it's not a monopoly solely held by evolution. We all know the principles of falsification and such; these ideas help tarnish and solidify our theories we have now."

Indeed it is the boast of all science, but how much more for the science with such a high margin of error. You said it yourself that "some theories are better at predicting than others." This is an essence the admission that some are less reliable.

"4. I have shown with my previous arguments how NS was used as an accurate and reliably predictive model."

No you have not. You have shown that ND is used as a historical model that uses backtesting to confirm inferences. You need to show how it can stand up to the conventional definition of the scientific method of hypothesis, testing and replicable observation. Demonstrating the addition of information to genome should be tested and replicated. But it is not. Observation trumps scientific backtesting and inferences – we do not observe nor has ND made any reliable predictions concerning speciation resulting in a change of kind.

"5. Would you mind giving a link, or a source to this claim? It's quite hard to pinpoint your argument if I've never heard about it before, and there is no source."

I gave you the source. Douglas Theobald's, 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. http://www.talkorigins.org... If you go to section 5.7 you will find where I gathered the information. It takes a rate 400 darwins a year to transform a mouse into an elephant in 10,000 years. Since a rate of 200,000 thousand darwins has already been seen in the lab, then it could theoretically take only 20 years to produce an elephant from a mouse. Why have no such tests been observed? A reliably predictive model would get better results, and not just retarded fruit flies.

-----------------------------------------
1. You have not answered the question of whether or not you understand the difference between a historical model and a predictive one.

2. You have not answered the question of how we can trust a theory that admits it can be wrong at any given point.

3. You have not shown how Neo-Darwinism is capable of standing up to the conventional definition of the scientific method of hypothesis, testing and replicable observation.

4. You have also not established why such mouse-elephant tests, if are apparently so reasonably possible, have not been demonstrated.

I would like to thank my opponent for his responses and I look forward to his answers and evidence.

Sources:
1. http://dsc.discovery.com...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Debate Round No. 3
TheSkeptic

Pro

"Actually you said attack AND Propose. I was simply stating that I am under no obligation to propose an alternative. It was merely a clarification if either you or the audience was misled."

--> I meant two things. Either you can attack the merit of ND, or propose another synthesis that was better than ND. Simply put, you went with the first and most common one. I'm sure we agree on this, and this whole thing was just a miscommunication on our parts. I never intended for this to be an argument, but just a clarification for us.

Since my opponent has broken the rest of his round as 2 5-series arguments/rebuttals/questions, I will follow along this same format for the ease of the voters and my opponent/

~First Set of Counterarguments~

1. My opponent's conception of a "historical model" isn't so much an argument against ND, because this type of "predictive power" is what I like to refer to as "retro-diction". Using conclusions and inferences we have gained with the ND theory now, we can infer things that happened in the PAST. I will explain later in my argument.

2. Yes, you will find in astronomy that they can predict the position of orbiting planets quite accurately, but with small bodies being present, their calculations are always off to a certain degree. This isn't to say that their calculations are way off the chart, but it shows that theories can not account for all extraneous factors. [1]

You will find that for many theories, the area of the study they are in will have a different "type" of prediction, if you will. Archaeology for example, is all about "retro-diction". Using theories and evidence we have now, we can discover things in the PAST . This is what lead to my argument about using homologies from African apes to conclude that the first humans arose from Africa. A fine example of predictive power is when Charles Darwin predicted that because there existed a plant (Angraecum) with a long spur in its flowers, a complementary animal with a 30 cm proboscis must also exist to feed on and pollinate it. About twenty years after Charles Darwin's death, they found that animal; it was a form of a hawk moth. [2] The predictive power of a theory does two things: it allows for practical application of the theory, and for greater possibility of falsification. ND fulfills both.

My opponent's argument refutation of how bacteria becoming more and more resistant to any widely used antibiotics is true, it happens because of Horizontal gene transfer. However, we can actually use the SAME source he linked and show how ND plays a role in this. Because gene transferring plays a role in phylogenetic trees for evolution, we can come to the conclusion that there was no single most recent common ancestor, because of the "mosaic-like" way of gene transfer, and subsequent phylogenetic trees. [3] While it's true that we used horizontal gene transfer as evidence for evolution (which speaks more for my side in some ways), we can use this confounding factor to INFER and "RETRO-DICT" conclusions for other things, as I have shown.

"New DNA being generated would be a more accurate example – but I know of no such examples to provide. Do you?"

--> Like with any other theory, ND still has holes and unanswered questions. However, two very viable explanations for how point mutations can lead to lengthening the strand of DNA and the adding of chromosomes are transposons and polyploidy. [4] Transposons are elements that can lead to creating new genes, , and polyploidy can double the total number of chromosomes , or a single chromosome can duplicate itself. There is predictive power in this because scientists are able to learn TONS of things about DNA, and infer/predict new conclusions about DNA.

"Actually no. These are not predictions at all. That is why I put the parentheses around predictions. A confirmation of inferences that is not empirically testable is not a predictive model, it is a historical one."

--> As I've shown, "retro-diction" is a viable means of predictive power. ND has both predictive power in the sense my opponent is thinking, and retro-dictive power.

"You are only confirming the sort of backtesting that I'm talking about. Bacteria mutating, like I said before, is a fascinating phenomenon, but it does not support the evolution of ND. No new genes, no addition to the gene pool."

--> I've shown how new genes form. I've shown how "retro-diction" is a viable means of predicting, since we can come to new conclusions/inferences. Inferring that humans arose in Africa IS A VIABLE PREDICTION, even though it's a conclusion based on something in the past.

Finally, my opponent has failed to refute my example of the predictive power of ND that fits his view of "prediction". I've shown how ND involved the discovery of DNA.

3. I stated that some theories are better at predicting than others in your conventional thinking. I've shown how "retro-diction" is a viable form of predicting, even though these shouldn't be two terms separated, as they are the same. But for the context of this debate, I will use them as such. A good prediction in science is learning something we wouldn't have previously learned. ND does a good job of this.

4. I've proven how ND is a reliably predictive model with my previous arguments. This really shouldn't be a point/argument, since it's more like a recap.

5. Two flaws with your argument. First of all, even if it was true that you could take a mouse and in 20 years it be an elephant, that's naively assuming that ND will make a mouse into an elephant as we know it today. As I've stated long ago with my astronomy analogy, it's impractical to account for mutations and the traits that survive, so we can't accurately figure out what species will arise from evolving from the mouse.

The more serious flaw is that your argument about the mice IS NOT IN THE SOURCE. The source talks about darwins, a unit used primarily for paleontology [5]. It basically argues that if modern observed rates of evolution were unable to account for the rates found in the fossil record, the theory of common descent would be extremely difficult to justify. This is one out of many criteria to FALSIFY ND, another testimony to it being a reliably predictive model.

~Second Set of Counterarguments~

1. I have shown why your split of these two terms is useless and vague. A prediction in science does not always have to be for future use, it's learning anything we wouldn't have known otherwise if the theory didn't exist.

2. Exactly what do you mean by "how we can trust a theory that admits it can be wrong at any given point." You mean it's high degree of falsifiability? In science, THIS IS GOOD. [6]

3. I have shown how it's predictions are accurate and reliable.

4. You're source has yet to show where such mouse-elephant tests are possible. You're argument is a flawed understanding of how we can make a mouse evolve into what we conceive of as an elephant. Your source helps my side, as it shows how ND can be falsifiable, yet again a testimony to it's predictive power.

~Conclusion~

I have to be brief, due to low character limit. I thank my opponent for taking this interesting debate. I have shown how ND has strong predictive power, and it's falsifiability is unquestioned. Vote for PRO!

---References---
1. http://epoxi.umd.edu...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://science.howstuffworks.com...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...(unit)
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
InquireTruth

Con

I will start with the points my opponent most certainly did not answer.

"5. Two flaws with your argument. First of all, even if it was true that you could take a mouse and in 20 years it be an elephant, that's naively assuming that ND will make a mouse into an elephant as we know it today…The more serious flaw is that your argument about the mice IS NOT IN THE SOURCE."

I find this to be unfair. My opponent has completely dodged the argument, twice, by claiming that I have supplied insufficient data. Let me quote the source that I supplied my opponent: "Note that a sustained rate of "only" 400 darwins is sufficient to transform a mouse into an elephant in a mere 10,000 years."(1)

My point still stands without refute. This prediction is a testable one that has not been tried (although similar ones HAVE been tried with faster breeding animals and they failed to fulfill evolutionary predictions). Whether it looks like the elephants we know today is completely irrelevant, that fact of the matter is we have not observed ONE of these shifts in kind (referring to kind of species).

"1. My opponent's conception of a "historical model" isn't so much an argument against ND, because this type of "predictive power" is what I like to refer to as "retro-diction". Using conclusions and inferences we have gained with the ND theory now, we can infer things that happened in the PAST."

My opponent has failed to acknowledge the difference between a historical model and a predictive one. A predictive model is, by definition, a model used to predict future events (2). This retrodiction that he so fondly speaks of is a perfect example of a historical model. It can be used to confirm inferences of past events, but it is not the scientific method of a testable hypothesis with replicable observation.

Let me give another example of this "retrodiction" in action. The Bible states that the wall of Jericho was surrounded by men with trumpets who eventually were able to make it crumble using just their trumpets and voices. We should therefore find the wall of Jericho to have crumbled upon itself and not inward or outward as if besieged. Well what do you know, we find just that (3). Therefore, this retrodiction confirms the inference and supports the validity of the Bible. Are you as willing to except the Bible by the merits of your supposed model?

"2… You will find that for many theories, the area of the study they are in will have a different "type" of prediction, if you will. Archaeology for example, is all about "retro-diction"… A fine example of predictive power is when Charles Darwin predicted that because there existed a plant (Angraecum) with a long spur in its flowers, a complementary animal with a 30 cm proboscis must also exist to feed on and pollinate it…. Because gene transferring plays a role in phylogenetic trees for evolution, we can come to the conclusion that there was no single most recent common ancestor, because of the "mosaic-like" way of gene transfer, and subsequent phylogenetic trees. [3] While it's true that we used horizontal gene transfer as evidence for evolution (which speaks more for my side in some ways), we can use this confounding factor to INFER and "RETRO-DICT" conclusions for other things, as I have shown."

My opponent is comparing Neo-Darwinism to archeology. That only helps in emphasizing my point that ND is not a reliably predictive model. He uses yet another example – talking about Darwin's prediction – of backtesting. This is certainly not a predictive model. The area of gene transfer is completely irrelevant. The point was to show that it does not support the claim of ND because it does not support the evolution that it claims. Merely employing the mechanism of natural selection is not enough. Such variation owes more to mendelian genetics than ND.

"Like with any other theory, ND still has holes and unanswered questions…"
That's great, but until ND fills those holes, do not expect the masses to blindly believe its validity without evidence. My opponent goes on to give a theory. That is not what we need, we need evidence. These holes are absolutely necessary components for ND to operate as a predictive model. Large scale change from one kind of species to another requires an addition to the gene pool. If ND claims this to be possible, it ought to use the scientific method to prove it – and it has not. Therefore it is not a reliably predictive model.

~His Second Set of Counterarguments~

1."A prediction in science does not always have to be for future use"
Yes, but it does need to be a future prediction in order to be a predictive model.

2."You mean it's high degree of falsifiability?"
In order for ND to be falsifiable, it would need to start making use of the scientific method so we can actually test its claims. Given that admittance that it could be wrong at any given point, I can understand the hesitancy to present falsifiable data.

3."I have shown how it's predictions are accurate and reliable."
Nope you have shown that ND only uses a form of backtesting that is not the foundation for a reliably predictive model. You have given an example of a historical model.

4."You're source has yet to show where such mouse-elephant tests are possible."
This is a lie and an unfair tactic in debating. My source included all the information as shown above.
"Your source helps my side, as it shows how ND can be falsifiable, yet again a testimony to it's predictive power."
The source helps my side because if gives examples of ways that ND COULD be falsified but it is not. It gives testable examples, yet none of them have been tested. And when it has been tested (with fruit flies) the predictions were not in accordance with the theory.

~Points that have not been refuted~

1.You have not answered the question of whether or not you understand the difference between a historical model and a predictive one.
2.You have not shown how Neo-Darwinism is capable of standing up to the conventional definition of the scientific method of hypothesis, testing and replicable observation.
3.You have also not established why such mouse-elephant tests, if are apparently so reasonably possible, have not been demonstrated.

~Conclusion~

My opponent has not addressed the most fundamental points necessary in establishing ND as a reliably predictive model. ND would need to make use of the scientific method in order to be falsified. It uses backtesting which is good for testing inferences, but not for predicting future phenomena. If ND is a reliably predictive model then we should see testable evidence of its reliability – and we do not. TheSkeptic expects the reader to believe such claims on faith?

Sources:
1. http://www.talkorigins.org...
2. http://searchdatamanagement.techtarget.com...
3. http://www.watchmanmag.com...
http://dsc.discovery.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
So what is the rule about voting for yourself?
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
"You could have definitely used better sources."
So even though I used the, apparently very reputable TalkOrigins, I need better sources? So let me get this straight, when he uses the same source it = okay. When I use it = not okay. Makes sense. Same with wikipedia.

He uses howstuffworks.com and I use Discovery Channel news. Yup, it seems like my sources are screwed to the max.

"and there are major flaws in your reasoning."
Care to share them?
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
I respect TheSkeptic as a very talented debater. I was very direct and straightforward and wasted no extra characters to be condescending - your bizarre interpretation notwithstanding.

"You took his statement out of context and implied that he might mislead the reader."
It certaintly misled me, why then would I not seek to clarify this for the reader? My statement came with the proviso: "it was merely for clarification."

"-I agree with him in stating so, hence my vote for him in sources"

This stands as paramount testimony for your complete inability to vote objectively. It is one thing to be incredulous – it is another thing all together to cover your face when damning alternative information is presented and then hope that it merely goes away. Check the source, it's there. He has already apologized for his oversight.

"Ahhh, but this very line of arguing is one that did not convince me in the debate. He gave a clear example of a predictive model- one which I quoted when explaining my voting. You attempted to "change" the definition of a predictive model relative to your understanding of it, not relative to it's accepted scientific use."

Of course you are not convinced; you have a veil of insuperable bias blocking any form of rational judgment. He did not give a clear example of a predictive model – ever. When did I change my definition? You apparently have absolutely no idea what the difference between a predictive model is (in all sciences) and a historical one. FUTURE FUTURE FUTURE. Not past, not retrodiction! FUTURE.

"You misstated the result of your own source in that the timeline was already confirmed by our knowledge of King Nebuchadnezzar"
Are you are unaware of common literary practices? You ever wonder why prediction was in quotes?

"In Spelling and Grammar, I posted the fragmented sentences which you used in your arguments."
Dialogical literary device. Ever heard of it?

I am thoroughly unimpressed.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
-The tablet merely confirmed the existence of a previously unknown figure outside of the context of Jeremiah.

"You only confirmed by suspicion that you are incapable of voting without bias. You have given your reasons - and you should be embarrased."
-I do not know you, and I do not know TheSkeptic. I have no reason to want either of you to win the debate, and I have, in fact, voted against people I wholeheartedly agreed with because of their flawed arguments. In this case, TheSkeptic argued the position similarly to how I would have, and so there is my bias. Had I had the pleasure of arguing for Con, I would not have argued the way you have, and there are major flaws in your reasoning. You could have definitely used better sources, and you could have definitely used some humility.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
"Read please. I said it was for the sake of clarity, so that no one was confused. I did not "accuse" him of anything."
-You took his statement out of context and implied that he might mislead the reader. His statement was not misleading, but yours was. After he clarified his statement (which didn't need clarifying) you, again, took his statement out of context- "Actually you said attack AND Propose."

"Are you forgetting that my opponent accused me of sourcing material that did not have the necessary information, when indeed it did?"
-I agree with him in stating so, hence my vote for him in sources.

"Yet has nothing to do with spelling or grammar."
-Fragmented sentences have everything to do with spelling and grammar.

"Not according to the definition of prediction that he supplied. Even if you were correct, such confirmation of inferences is not a predictive model! It is a historical one! A predictive model, by definition, is a model that makes FUTURE predictions."
-Ahhh, but this very line of arguing is one that did not convince me in the debate. He gave a clear example of a predictive model- one which I quoted when explaining my voting. You attempted to "change" the definition of a predictive model relative to your understanding of it, not relative to it's accepted scientific use.

"I most certainly did not. I said that it confirms the biblical timeline - in which case it does."
-This is your exact statement- "Jeremiah makes an astonishing "prediction" over 2600 years ago...The timeline is the inference, and the tablet stands as confirmation. If this sort of confirmation of inferences is reliable, then you should also affirm the reliably of the Bibles historical timeline. All this notwithstanding, it would still only be a historical model – not at all a reliably predictive one."
-You misstated the result of your own source in that the timeline was already confirmed by our knowledge of King Nebuchadnezzar.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
InquireTruth, I am as unbiased on the subject as you are in evaluating my statements. Of course I was not biased in Before/After, and I believe your conduct was as you are now in the comments section- accusatory and condescending. In Spelling and Grammar, I posted the fragmented sentences which you used in your arguments. Your arguments did not convince me because you attacked what I believe to be true without presenting any facts that would make me think otherwise. Had Pro not presented key arguments which I assumed, given my knowledge on the subject, that he would present then it wouldn't matter. He in fact did, and you did not refuse this line of arguing with facts, rather with opinion. Your sources presented the same arguments you were presenting, and also lacked facts.

I already understand you disagree with the position, but to say I am not voting on the merits of the debate is ridiculous given that I have outlined why I voted the way I did. Regardless of your ability to refute these points, that is why many different voters have the opportunity to vote. If everyone voted objectively- even if they agreed with you in the end, you would lose points on S&G, Convincing Argument, Sources, and Conduct.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
"Con accused Pro of limiting the debate to an attack and alternative against ND, but in fact he not only presented two different courses of action, but it seemed merely a suggestion and assumption on Pro's part."

Read please. I said it was for the sake of clarity, so that no one was confused. I did not "accuse" him of anything.

"Con continued this claim even after Pro clarified."

What are you referring to? Are you forgetting that my opponent accused me of sourcing material that did not have the necessary information, when indeed it did?

"This style is condescending, and completely ignores the readers who are the judges of the debate."

Yet has nothing to do with spelling or grammar.

"I feel Con contradicted himself in saying that the model is used for backtesting to confirm inferences. Indeed, a confirmed inference, before it is confirmed, is a prediction."

Not according to the definition of prediction that he supplied. Even if you were correct, such confirmation of inferences is not a predictive model! It is a historical one! A predictive model, by definition, is a model that makes FUTURE predictions.

"Con misquoted one of his sources as proving one of Jeremiah's "predictions", when in fact the source only confirmed the name of a person mentioned in the book."

I most certainly did not. I said that it confirms the biblical timeline - in which case it does.

You only confirmed by suspicion that you are incapable of voting without bias. You have given your reasons - and you should be embarrased.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
OH! Sorry InquireTruth, haha I failed to see your comment.

And yes, I will save it for later ammunition ;D. I usually stay away from discussing points in the comment section if the relative debate concerns it. There's always voters who read the comments, and it subsequently warps their voting bias.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
"Also, could you please list reasons as to why you awarded my opponent all 7 points. If I knew who voted for me I would be asking of them the same thing."

Ok....

Before/After debate: Pro
Con's arguments did not convince me of his position.

Conduct: Pro
Con accused Pro of limiting the debate to an attack and alternative against ND, but in fact he not only presented two different courses of action, but it seemed merely a suggestion and assumption on Pro's part. Indeed if you understood Pro's premise, it would seem his two options were the only possible courses of action. Con continued this claim even after Pro clarified.

Spelling and Grammar: Pro
Because of Con's choice of debating style, ie. taking Pro's statements and answering directly as if his statement was continued from a prior thought ("No you have not"; "I gave you the source"; "Actually no", etc.)- I gave the point to Pro. This style is condescending, and completely ignores the readers who are the judges of the debate. It was also difficult to follow Con's arguments as he had no clear pattern, and made contradictory statements. I will explain under arguments.

Arguments: Pro
I feel Con contradicted himself in saying that the model is used for backtesting to confirm inferences. Indeed, a confirmed inference, before it is confirmed, is a prediction. This line of argument seemed to confirm Con. Pro also, predictively, used the example of Darwin's prediction of Xanthopan morganii, also known as Darwin's Hawk Moth to solidify his argument. Con, nonetheless, refused this as proof that the model works.

Sources: Pro
Con's sources would require extensive research of allegations made within the source itself. Con's source served to beg the question, rather than prove his point. Con misquoted one of his sources as proving one of Jeremiah's "predictions", when in fact the source only confirmed the name of a person mentioned in the book.
Posted by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
Also, could you please list reasons as to why you awarded my opponent all 7 points. If I knew who voted for me I would be asking of them the same thing.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Yoni 8 years ago
Yoni
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DevinRichardson1 8 years ago
DevinRichardson1
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by K_Rich3 8 years ago
K_Rich3
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Wayne 8 years ago
Wayne
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JoshNiggli 8 years ago
JoshNiggli
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by solo 8 years ago
solo
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
TheSkepticInquireTruthTied
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:50