It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: SuperFrog
originally posted by: TheLamb
I'm up for standing by God's Creation if anyone else is and the debate is between Creation and Evolution. I don't want to get into a debate on science and how it is practised as I'm not a scientist. The rules say two or three speakers. I've got most of the arguments in my head, but any additional input would be welcomed. All we have to do is prove God exists and is omnipotent, demonstrate how Creationism explains what Evolution can't and reconcile Creationism with Evolution. We can show where Evolution falls short if necessary. It couldn't be simpler. What do you think?
This degradation of Science and placing term 'practice' where only religion is practiced as far as I know.
Here is one of MW definition of science: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
Evolution together with biology is only one of science branches, and it is impossible to talk about evolution, without talking about science.
Please avoid degradation of science to fuel your agenda.
I really wonder how will you prove existence of God.
originally posted by: TheLamb
a reply to: Phantom423
Why does science have to be part of the debate? You can't apply science to God because you can't test Him for a response and you certainly can't measure Him. If I have to wear a science hat for the debate to follow and understand the argument, the other party will have to wear a believer one and accept God as the Creator. It's only fair.
Why does science have to be part of the debate? You can't apply science to God because you can't test Him for a response and you certainly can't measure Him.
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: TzarChasm
Thanks - done
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: TzarChasm
Fixed.
I've been collecting the links but haven't had a lot of time to updated the website. Hopefully will get to it by Wednesday.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423
As has already been made quite clear, that is not a debate. You're trying to stack the deck in your favour.
Don't chicken out after making such a brave show for fourteen pages. Prove your brave words.
The format for the debate has never changed.
originally posted by: Phantom423
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...
It was always about science vs the pseudo science of Creationism.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423
The format for the debate has never changed.
Your original post does not demand that Creationists use scientific arguments to prove their point. You have kept shifting the goalposts as you go along.
Here is your original post in full:
originally posted by: Phantom423
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...
Nothing about science vs. pseudoscience there, or anything about having to prove their points scientifically.
It was always about science vs the pseudo science of Creationism.
Possibly that is how it appeared to you in your mind, but that isn't the debate you asked for. Neither can you pick and choose the opposition's arguments for them.
How many times do you need to be reassured that Creationism has no valid scientific basis? This has already been acknowledged several times in this thread. If that's what you wanted, you got it. And that's all you're going to get, because nobody is going to debate a foregone conclusion with you.
my original offer to debate was made back in 2014
The challenge I made months ago to debate anyone on this board about Creationism and evolution is still open. Any takers??
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Phantom423
my original offer to debate was made back in 2014
Good grief. Talk about obsession!
But yes, I seem to remember something of the sort, though a look at your profile doesn't show a thread on that subject. All I could find was this:
The challenge I made months ago to debate anyone on this board about Creationism and evolution is still open. Any takers??
That's from your Creationist Quackery thread, posted in Dec 2014. Attacking Creationism seems to be your only interest on ATS.
Did you make the offer in someone else's thread? In that case, please quote the relevant post here, so that we can see what conditions you originally stipulated. In the meantime, consider this: you'll wait till the Last Trump for anyone to debate you according to the conditions you're now laying down. And that proves nothing except that nobody wants to play against a stacked deck.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: TzarChasm
Fixed.
I've been collecting the links but haven't had a lot of time to updated the website. Hopefully will get to it by Wednesday.
so there is some abiogenesis material coming?
i know its primarily an evolution archive but since there is a section for abiogenesis...
I stated the topic of the debate
And yes the deck is stacked - stacked in favor of real science.
You're asking irrelevant questions which don't require a response.
originally posted by: TheLamb
Why does science have to be part of the debate? You can't apply science to God because you can't test Him for a response and you certainly can't measure Him.
All we have to do is prove God exists and is omnipotent, demonstrate how Creationism explains what Evolution can't and reconcile Creationism with Evolution. We can show where Evolution falls short if necessary. It couldn't be simpler.