Continuing Challenge to Creationists

I am reiterating my continuing challenge to Creationists to debate their position.

1. The debate would be held in the Debate Forum.
2. The debate would be moderated and the format would be the standard rules of debate.
3. Rules can be found here: homepage.ntu.edu.tw...
4. Members on both sides can participate.

Also, the ATS Evolution website has been updated - not complete, but updated. Any recommendations would be welcome.

ats-library.wix.com...

Good luck.

a reply to: Phantom423

What the hell are you doing with this thread? Advertising!
You do realise the only winner in the debate will be futility?
And that your argumentation won't prove anything? Ever!

Creationists don't do challenges. They like easy. It's easier to blindly believe something because it is comforting to them, than to actually do research and learn about science and the natural world. They won't go the extra mile to research anything, so any debate with them is pretty much futile. Any formal debate with them would make them a laughing stock because they can't stay on topic, they can't address evidence, and they can't address counterpoints. Their tactics of logical fallacies like straw mans, red herrings, appeals to ignorance etc would be discounted and they'd have no argument left at the end of the day. I admit that It would be mildly amusing watching them break the debating rules over and over again, but I don't think any of them has the guts to enter a formal debate about evolution or creationism.

Hopefully one of the many creationists here on ATS will pick up the gauntlet, i'd find the whole thing quite entertaining.

Kent.H is loose and now has his own YT channel....

Hey a man can hope!

i'm really curious how the rule about "providing factual proof" is going to play out for either side.

a reply to: Phantom423

A proper debate with rules that apply to both sides is the bane of creationism.


I do not believe any creationists will be up to the task.

The folks over at icr.org (Institute of Creation Research) seem to think they have scientific evidence. www.icr.org...

Here's a typical abstract:

The Chasm Between the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes: A Review of the Evolutionary Literature

Evidence for Creation

by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D., and Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

In M. Horstemeyer, ed., 2013, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism, Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship. Visit the ICC at www.creationicc.org.

Abstract

Data has been extracted from secular literature that is contrary to the common claim that very few genetic differences exist between chimpanzees and humans. We found that significant reported differences exist in genomic similarity and gene regulation between chimpanzees and humans. The DNA sequence differences and genetic mechanisms reported in the literature support the conclusion that significant and unbridgeable genetic differences exist between humans and chimpanzees that defy evolutionary claims of a common ancestor.

There's only one problem: No one ever, ever goes into the lab to challenge an experiment by repeating it and demonstrating that the results produce a different outcome. Nor do they do their own hard research. There isn't a single bench scientist in the whole bunch!

Every paper they "publish" refutes the hard evidence with lengthy diatribes against the results of experimental, peer-reviewed research.

The DNA sequence differences and genetic mechanisms reported in the literature support the conclusion that significant and unbridgeable genetic differences exist between humans and chimpanzees that defy evolutionary claims of a common ancestor.

I'd really like to have a look at that magic wand they're using to draw a "conclusion" which could only be made by accumulating experimental data and then using computational analysis to compare the sequences and mechanisms.

The lack of critical thinking by followers of Creationism is astounding. It may be in the genes?

Oh man, I really hope someone from the creationist side steps up. This would be quite entertaining.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Phantom423

What the hell are you doing with this thread? Advertising!

You do realise the only winner in the debate will be futility?
And that your argumentation won't prove anything? Ever!

You missed the point. Read it again.

a reply to: Phantom423

The debate is rigged against creation from point A.
So how would it ever prove anything?
I'm not even sure what the debate would be about?
Creation, creation vs evolution, what are the parameters?

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Phantom423

The debate is rigged against creation from point A.
So how would it ever prove anything?
I'm not even sure what the debate would be about?
Creation, creation vs evolution, what are the parameters?

You are being deliberately difficult in order to save face while avoiding the challenge. If you can't meet the challenge, just say so.

a reply to: TzarChasm

If you see my post as difficult maybe you need to just
read along.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: TzarChasm

If you see my post as difficult maybe you need to just
read along.

Your post wasn't difficult. It just tried to make something difficult out of something simple and straightforward. Why confuse the issue? It's a distraction tactic. All of your questions that you have posed so far can be answered by reading the opening post. The object and rules have been made crystal clear.

TL;DR obvious stalling is obvious m8.

a reply to: Phantom423

5. He who asserts must prove

So you are going to prove their is no Creator?

Can you please explain the demonstrable difference between a universe that Evolved on its own, without a creator, vs a universe that was programmed by a Creator?

a reply to: TzarChasm

So is it as simple as, I would argue afirmitive for creation and then phantom
would argue against? I don't even see what the big deal is as far as becoming
a laughing stalk and what all that bombastic peer pressure rhetoric is about?

Everytime I post on ATS I learn something and I damn sure didn't sign on
here to win any popularity contests, or beauty pagents. So I don't fear any
of the emoticons. And nobody will ever laugh at me more than I already have.
I'm not trying to be difficult just trying to make sure I understand.

a reply to: Phantom423

Debate against what?

a reply to: DelayEm

That's what I'm say'n thank you!

originally posted by: randyvs
The debate is rigged against creation from point A.

Do you mind elaborating? Thank you.