Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Creation or Evolution Debate

Founder
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 6:23:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm looking for someone to challenge me to a debate. I'm debating for creation. 5 rounds, 8,000, 72 hours. 1st round for clarification of terms, 2-4 evidences presented for each side (1 evidence by each side for every round please), 5th round for closing statements. The evidences should purely be of scientific nature.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 7:11:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can do one of two things. You can either issue a challenge to an individual directly, or you can make an open challenge that anyone can accept.

I recommend defining "creation" clearly. After all, there are plenty of people who think God created the world, but who also think evolution happened. Are you talking about the origin of life? Or are you talking about the various species? Are you saying each species was created directly rather than having evolved? Or are you defending young earth creationism? You gotta be specific so people will know what they're getting into.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Founder
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 7:11:17 PM, philochristos wrote:
You can do one of two things. You can either issue a challenge to an individual directly, or you can make an open challenge that anyone can accept.
I know this, I was hoping someone would challenge me though.
I recommend defining "creation" clearly.
By creation I mean: The various original life forms (kinds), including mankind, were made by direct creative acts of God roughly 6,000 years ago. The living descendants of any of the original kinds (apart from man) may represent more than one species today, reflecting the genetic potential within the original kind. Only limited biological changes (including mutational deterioration) have occurred naturally within each kind since creation.
After all, there are plenty of people who think God created the world, but who also think evolution happened.
I'm aware, although not Biblical.
Are you talking about the origin of life? Or are you talking about the various species? Are you saying each species was created directly rather than having evolved? Or are you defending young earth creationism? You gotta be specific so people will know what they're getting into.
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 8:02:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

If not macro-evolution then what do you call it when a cow turns into something that is no longer a cow, assuming that could ever happen??
Founder
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 8:15:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

They are not the same thing. Evolutionists usually commit the fallacy of 'bait and switch' by defining a term one way, but using it in a completely different way. Finch beaks, antibiotic resistance, and peppered moths are cited as 'evolution in action!' while in reality, these changes are variation within kinds. These evolutionary changes (i.e. mutations) do not lead up to the creation of a new kind, as in dinosuar to bird. For molecules-to-man evolution to happen, there needs to be a gain in new information within the organism"s genetic material. For instance, for a single-celled organism, such as an amoeba, to evolve into something like a cow, new information (not random base pairs, but complex and ordered DNA) would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs, etc. If an amoeba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information. (Currently, an amoeba has limited genetic information, such as the information for protoplasm.) This increase of new information would need to continue in order for a heart, kidneys, etc., to develop. If a DNA strand gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn"t code for anything (e.g., it doesn"t contain information for working lungs, heart, etc.), then the amount of DNA added is useless and would be more of a hindrance than a help. There have been a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don"t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite"organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain?
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 8:16:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

Never heard that before. Interesting.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 3:19:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 8:15:27 PM, Founder wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

They are not the same thing. Evolutionists usually commit the fallacy of 'bait and switch' by defining a term one way, but using it in a completely different way. Finch beaks, antibiotic resistance, and peppered moths are cited as 'evolution in action!' while in reality, these changes are variation within kinds. These evolutionary changes (i.e. mutations) do not lead up to the creation of a new kind, as in dinosuar to bird. For molecules-to-man evolution to happen, there needs to be a gain in new information within the organism"s genetic material. For instance, for a single-celled organism, such as an amoeba, to evolve into something like a cow, new information (not random base pairs, but complex and ordered DNA) would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs, etc. If an amoeba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information. (Currently, an amoeba has limited genetic information, such as the information for protoplasm.) This increase of new information would need to continue in order for a heart, kidneys, etc., to develop. If a DNA strand gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn"t code for anything (e.g., it doesn"t contain information for working lungs, heart, etc.), then the amount of DNA added is useless and would be more of a hindrance than a help. There have been a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don"t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite"organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain?

You literally know jack sh!t about evolution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 3:21:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 8:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

If not macro-evolution then what do you call it when a cow turns into something that is no longer a cow, assuming that could ever happen??

You can call it macro-evolution for semantics sake. But it's important to understand that microevolution leads to macroevolution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 3:27:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 3:21:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

If not macro-evolution then what do you call it when a cow turns into something that is no longer a cow, assuming that could ever happen??

You can call it macro-evolution for semantics sake. But it's important to understand that microevolution leads to macroevolution.

This is all very well, but you haven't even responded to his argument, simply resorting to insults.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 4:51:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 3:27:10 PM, errya wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:21:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

If not macro-evolution then what do you call it when a cow turns into something that is no longer a cow, assuming that could ever happen??

You can call it macro-evolution for semantics sake. But it's important to understand that microevolution leads to macroevolution.

This is all very well, but you haven't even responded to his argument, simply resorting to insults.

He doesn't have an argument. He has a bunch of fallacies directly taken from a Kent Hovind video that a high school kid who was taken Biology 30 could refute. He's not worth my time.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
autodidact
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 5:08:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 6:23:48 PM, Founder wrote:
I'm looking for someone to challenge me to a debate. I'm debating for creation. 5 rounds, 8,000, 72 hours. 1st round for clarification of terms, 2-4 evidences presented for each side (1 evidence by each side for every round please), 5th round for closing statements. The evidences should purely be of scientific nature.

You have not had any debates yet, and I fear you have not studied the totality of this dichotomy. Add to this that I have yet to see a YEC define "kind" in a way that would conflict with universal common decent.

The question is do I suggest you and I debate? I fear it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.....
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 5:32:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 4:51:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:27:10 PM, errya wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:21:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

If not macro-evolution then what do you call it when a cow turns into something that is no longer a cow, assuming that could ever happen??

You can call it macro-evolution for semantics sake. But it's important to understand that microevolution leads to macroevolution.

This is all very well, but you haven't even responded to his argument, simply resorting to insults.

He doesn't have an argument. He has a bunch of fallacies directly taken from a Kent Hovind video that a high school kid who was taken Biology 30 could refute. He's not worth my time.

Then refute it.
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 5:38:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 5:32:31 PM, errya wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:51:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:27:10 PM, errya wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:21:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

If not macro-evolution then what do you call it when a cow turns into something that is no longer a cow, assuming that could ever happen??

You can call it macro-evolution for semantics sake. But it's important to understand that microevolution leads to macroevolution.

This is all very well, but you haven't even responded to his argument, simply resorting to insults.

He doesn't have an argument. He has a bunch of fallacies directly taken from a Kent Hovind video that a high school kid who was taken Biology 30 could refute. He's not worth my time.

Then refute it.

This actually does the job quite well without making me waste my time.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Founder
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 7:12:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 3:19:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:15:27 PM, Founder wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

They are not the same thing. Evolutionists usually commit the fallacy of 'bait and switch' by defining a term one way, but using it in a completely different way. Finch beaks, antibiotic resistance, and peppered moths are cited as 'evolution in action!' while in reality, these changes are variation within kinds. These evolutionary changes (i.e. mutations) do not lead up to the creation of a new kind, as in dinosuar to bird. For molecules-to-man evolution to happen, there needs to be a gain in new information within the organism"s genetic material. For instance, for a single-celled organism, such as an amoeba, to evolve into something like a cow, new information (not random base pairs, but complex and ordered DNA) would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs, etc. If an amoeba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information. (Currently, an amoeba has limited genetic information, such as the information for protoplasm.) This increase of new information would need to continue in order for a heart, kidneys, etc., to develop. If a DNA strand gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn"t code for anything (e.g., it doesn"t contain information for working lungs, heart, etc.), then the amount of DNA added is useless and would be more of a hindrance than a help. There have been a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don"t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite"organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain?

You literally know jack sh!t about evolution.

What a well-thought out, logical argument! I never thought of it that way before! This is an abusive ad hominem fallacy, and has no bearing on the truth of the matter. If you want to debate then challenge me, but if not thank you for your comments. :) By the way, nothing I said came from Kent Hovind, I've studied creation/evolution for over a year now and can logically and rationally defend my position -- so if any of you want to debate me, do it! I won't be defending myself here anymore.
errya
Posts: 140
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 7:15:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 5:38:34 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 5:32:31 PM, errya wrote:
At 4/2/2013 4:51:12 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:27:10 PM, errya wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:21:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

If not macro-evolution then what do you call it when a cow turns into something that is no longer a cow, assuming that could ever happen??

You can call it macro-evolution for semantics sake. But it's important to understand that microevolution leads to macroevolution.

This is all very well, but you haven't even responded to his argument, simply resorting to insults.

He doesn't have an argument. He has a bunch of fallacies directly taken from a Kent Hovind video that a high school kid who was taken Biology 30 could refute. He's not worth my time.

Then refute it.

This actually does the job quite well without making me waste my time.



Right... As far as I can see this is a video just listing various fallacies, and attributing them to Creationists. Yes ,creationists have committed these fallacies at one point or another, nobody is perfect, even (believe it or not), evolutionists. (I don't actually think that much of Kent Hovind either, if you were wondering).

However, this video does nothing to address Founders argument. You have not shown it to be illogical in any way. So what was the point?
The Most Noble Lord Horatio Nelson, Viscount and Baron Nelson, of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe in the County of Norfolk, Baron Nelson of the Nile and of Hilborough in the said County, Knight of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Vice Admiral of the White Squadron of the Fleet, Commander in Chief of his Majesty's Ships and Vessels in the Mediterranean, Duke of Bront" in the Kingdom of Sicily, Knight Grand Cross of the Sicilian Order of St Ferdinand and of Merit, Member of the Ottoman Ord...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2013 8:15:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 6:23:48 PM, Founder wrote:
I'm looking for someone to challenge me to a debate. I'm debating for creation. 5 rounds, 8,000, 72 hours. 1st round for clarification of terms, 2-4 evidences presented for each side (1 evidence by each side for every round please), 5th round for closing statements. The evidences should purely be of scientific nature.

It's not clear what exactly you want to debate, what do you mean by "for creation".

By "for creation", do you mean "against evolution", I'd take that debate. I'm a Christian that sees no conflict whatsoever between science and Christianity, I see Genesis and evolution reconciled. If by "for creation" you mean you want to argue for a literal translation of Genesis, and stand the theory of evolution in opposition to that, then I'd debate that . I'm not going to take the side of science is a science versus Christianity debate, if that's the way you see it then I'd rather debate against your position that they are in opposition.

Be explicit about the debate you want to have and I'm pretty sure I'm your Huckleberry.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 9:23:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 3:21:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

If not macro-evolution then what do you call it when a cow turns into something that is no longer a cow, assuming that could ever happen??

You can call it macro-evolution for semantics sake. But it's important to understand that microevolution leads to macroevolution.

Can you demonstrate that with an example??
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 11:54:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2013 9:23:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:21:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

If not macro-evolution then what do you call it when a cow turns into something that is no longer a cow, assuming that could ever happen??

You can call it macro-evolution for semantics sake. But it's important to understand that microevolution leads to macroevolution.

Can you demonstrate that with an example??

Can you give me an example of an independent physical process called "macroevolution" that does not solely rely on microevolution?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 12:04:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 8:15:05 PM, Sidewalker wrote
theory of evolution in opposition to that, then I'd debate that . I'd rather debate against your position that they are in opposition.

Be explicit about the debate you want to have and I'm pretty sure I'm your Huckleberry.:

I am your Huckleberry.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
autodidact
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 3:43:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2013 7:12:28 PM, Founder wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:19:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:15:27 PM, Founder wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

They are not the same thing. Evolutionists usually commit the fallacy of 'bait and switch' by defining a term one way, but using it in a completely different way. Finch beaks, antibiotic resistance, and peppered moths are cited as 'evolution in action!' while in reality, these changes are variation within kinds. These evolutionary changes (i.e. mutations) do not lead up to the creation of a new kind, as in dinosuar to bird. For molecules-to-man evolution to happen, there needs to be a gain in new information within the organism"s genetic material. For instance, for a single-celled organism, such as an amoeba, to evolve into something like a cow, new information (not random base pairs, but complex and ordered DNA) would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs, etc. If an amoeba were to make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information. (Currently, an amoeba has limited genetic information, such as the information for protoplasm.) This increase of new information would need to continue in order for a heart, kidneys, etc., to develop. If a DNA strand gets larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesn"t code for anything (e.g., it doesn"t contain information for working lungs, heart, etc.), then the amount of DNA added is useless and would be more of a hindrance than a help. There have been a few arguable cases of information-gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don"t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite"organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction! How can losses of information add up to a gain?

You literally know jack sh!t about evolution.

What a well-thought out, logical argument! I never thought of it that way before! This is an abusive ad hominem fallacy, and has no bearing on the truth of the matter. If you want to debate then challenge me, but if not thank you for your comments. :) By the way, nothing I said came from Kent Hovind, I've studied creation/evolution for over a year now and can logically and rationally defend my position -- so if any of you want to debate me, do it! I won't be defending myself here anymore.

it would an ad hom if the person was saying your ideas should be ignored simply because you seem to lack so much base knowledge on the subject.
"You literally know jack sh!t about evolution." seems to be a concise evaluation of your skill set actually rather than a reason to ignore you

The highest education I have is trades school. So as formal education goes I don't have a sizable advantage over you. I as a hobby admin a facebook page on the debate on evolution and creation. so....
pick a topic like:
evolutionary changes (i.e. mutations) do not lead up to the creation of a new kind,
or
How can losses of information add up to a gain?
or
something about information and DNA

define Key terms in R1 and challenge me.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 7:12:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2013 11:54:18 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/3/2013 9:23:54 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/2/2013 3:21:50 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 8:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:37:47 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 4/1/2013 7:34:10 PM, Founder wrote:
All of the above. I'm debating anything retaining to evolution. However I'm not debating variations within created kinds (microevolution) which some evolutionists confuse with one kind of animal evolving into another (i.e. reptile into a bird). Thank you for asking these questions and allowing me to clarify myself.

That's because they are the same thing. Animals don't magically turn from dinosaurs to reptiles or vice versa. It is an extremely slow process of small evolutionary changes (microevolution) that finally leads to the creation of a new species (macroevolution). Macroevolution doesn't actually happen in the physical sense; it is simply a linguistic tool to signify when one species turns into another.

If not macro-evolution then what do you call it when a cow turns into something that is no longer a cow, assuming that could ever happen??

You can call it macro-evolution for semantics sake. But it's important to understand that microevolution leads to macroevolution.

Can you demonstrate that with an example??

Can you give me an example of an independent physical process called "macroevolution" that does not solely rely on microevolution?

Common descent is your theory, not mine. I assumed you could support it. You're welcome to use whatever words you like, I just asked for an example of the process actually working to produce the kind of change necessary for microbe-to-man evolution.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 8:06:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2013 12:04:21 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/2/2013 8:15:05 PM, Sidewalker wrote
theory of evolution in opposition to that, then I'd debate that . I'd rather debate against your position that they are in opposition.

Be explicit about the debate you want to have and I'm pretty sure I'm your Huckleberry.:

I am your Huckleberry.

OK, you are arguing for a literal translaton of Genesis in opposition to the theory of evolution, correct?

I'm arguing against a literal translation of Genesis and for the view that properly translated, Genesis and the TOE are in essential correspondence.

I always willing to debate but nobody ever agrees to debate me, so I've got no experience setting them up, at 13-0 I'm thinking you are good at the set up. Can you formulate the resolution? My position isn't particularly popular with either side of the traditional evo/creation debate, so for terms I'd like as many rounds and as much space as possible to make the argument. That way, maybe I can just bore you into submission LOL.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 8:25:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2013 8:06:40 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/3/2013 12:04:21 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/2/2013 8:15:05 PM, Sidewalker wrote
theory of evolution in opposition to that, then I'd debate that . I'd rather debate against your position that they are in opposition.

Be explicit about the debate you want to have and I'm pretty sure I'm your Huckleberry.:

I am your Huckleberry.

OK, you are arguing for a literal translation of Genesis in opposition to the theory of evolution, correct?

I'm arguing against a literal translation of Genesis and for the view that properly translated, Genesis and the TOE are in essential correspondence.

I always willing to debate but nobody ever agrees to debate me, so I've got no experience setting them up, at 13-0 I'm thinking you are good at the set up. Can you formulate the resolution? My position isn't particularly popular with either side of the traditional evo/creation debate, so for terms I'd like as many rounds and as much space as possible to make the argument. That way, maybe I can just bore you into submission LOL.:

Ok, I will take the Pro side and accept most of the BOP and set it up, if we only stay within the Bible and no scientific comparisons between the two. It is already a given and not relevant that your theory supports mainstream science and mine has smaller evidence. Your case should remain solely within the Bible and mine should also. If you do not agree then you should send the debate and we can message to make a agreeable set-up for you to submit.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
wiploc
Posts: 1,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2013 10:05:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 6:23:48 PM, Founder wrote:
I'm looking for someone to challenge me to a debate. I'm debating for creation. 5 rounds, 8,000, 72 hours. 1st round for clarification of terms, 2-4 evidences presented for each side (1 evidence by each side for every round please), 5th round for closing statements. The evidences should purely be of scientific nature.

Why five rounds? If you've worked with a particular debater before, and trust her to be clear, organized, and logical, then five rounds might be warranted. That's if you are also clear, organized and logical.

Normally, after three rounds, debates deteriorate, becoming a chaotic rehashing of points already covered.

Plus, five-round debates are longer. Fewer people read them. Fewer people vote.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 7:38:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2013 8:25:44 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/3/2013 8:06:40 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 4/3/2013 12:04:21 PM, Pennington wrote:
At 4/2/2013 8:15:05 PM, Sidewalker wrote
theory of evolution in opposition to that, then I'd debate that . I'd rather debate against your position that they are in opposition.

Be explicit about the debate you want to have and I'm pretty sure I'm your Huckleberry.:

I am your Huckleberry.

OK, you are arguing for a literal translation of Genesis in opposition to the theory of evolution, correct?

I'm arguing against a literal translation of Genesis and for the view that properly translated, Genesis and the TOE are in essential correspondence.

I always willing to debate but nobody ever agrees to debate me, so I've got no experience setting them up, at 13-0 I'm thinking you are good at the set up. Can you formulate the resolution? My position isn't particularly popular with either side of the traditional evo/creation debate, so for terms I'd like as many rounds and as much space as possible to make the argument. That way, maybe I can just bore you into submission LOL.:

Ok, I will take the Pro side and accept most of the BOP and set it up, if we only stay within the Bible and no scientific comparisons between the two.

How do you mean "no scientific comparisons between the two", I don't see how I can argue that Genesis and the TOE are essentially compatible without showing comparisons between the two.

It is already a given and not relevant that your theory supports mainstream science and mine has smaller evidence. Your case should remain solely within the Bible and mine should also. If you do not agree then you should send the debate and we can message to make a agreeable set-up for you to submit.

I'm not arguing Genesis vs evolution, I'm arguing that they are not incompatible, so I can't really remain solely in the Bible. I'll certainly draw heavily from the Bible in arguing against literalism, but evolution needs to be discussed don't you think?

Seems I need more leeway, as I said, both sides of the traditional debate hate my position, so I'm probably toast before we even begin, but I'm looking for a little more freedom to make my point, even if it's futile. Just because I'm going to get vote bombed into oblivion, doesn't mean I'm not right LOL.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 7:55:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I kind of think we are both saying the same thing here, you don't want to see me refer to scientific evidence to argue that a literal translation of Genesis is wrong, but me neither, that would defeat my entire argument. I assure you that my argument against literalism is Biblically derived, the Bible says Christianity is a ministry of reconciliation, my goal is reconciliation between Genesis and todays scientific understanding, I am not pitting them against each other.

Let's work out the resolution and rules/definitions here before anybody issues a formal challenge, I could be wrong, but it's my understanding that once a challenge goes you can't modify it, it's a yes or no thing.

In my only other debate I let my opponent issue the challenge and I think he tried to pull a fast one, his argument was ridiculous but he made the resolution a double negative that confused people, you couldn't tell who was arguing what, it ticked some people off, one even threatened to report the debate. I can certainly tick people off without a confusing resolution, so let's work together to get this straight up before I jump off that cliff LOL.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2013 8:40:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 8:02:33 PM, medic0506 wrote:

If not macro-evolution then what do you call it when a cow turns into something that is no longer a cow, assuming that could ever happen??

Define "cow".
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!