Continuing Challenge to Creationists

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.

So what verb should I have used? One practises medicine, and that's considered a science.

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.

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.

The debate isn't about the existence of God. It's about the science of the modern world versus the fraudulent science of Creationists. For instance,
* Creationists preach that the Earth is about 6000 years old. Modern science tells us that the Earth is billions of years old.
* Creationists don't believe in evolution. However, modern science has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that organisms on this planet have evolved and have common genetic ancestry.
* Creationists say that humans and dinosaurs existed in the same period of time. However, modern science tells us that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.
* Creationists believe that radio carbon dating and other more sophisticated spectroscopic techniques cannot date fossils, even though they have been proven wrong many times.

These are some of the subjects to be debated. It's not about religion. Creationism is not a religion. It's a cult.

Any Creationist who steps up to the plate for the debate needs to bring evidence that their position on Creationist science is correct and that modern science is wrong. That's the essence of the debate. And that's what it always has been - it has never been a question of God, intelligent design or religious belief systems.



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...

a reply to: Phantom423

i think your links need fixing.

a reply to: 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.

gee, thats awfully convenient!

a reply to: TzarChasm

Thanks - done

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: TzarChasm

Thanks - done

um, the debate rules link?

also, i noticed that the abiogenesis section of the library site is completely empty.

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: 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...

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.

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. It was always been about science vs the pseudo science of Creationism. If you can find a post where I suggested something else, please post the link.

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.

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.

What you forget is that my original offer to debate was made back in 2014 and it was clearly about the science - read the title of this thread - "CONTINUING..." . I have never discussed the existence of God or intelligent design. It was always about the science.

There are many members who have challenged real science in past threads - they don't show very much any more (gee, I wonder why

:devil

And no, if you participate in a debate, the topic is clearly outlined from the git-go - one of the tactics of Creationists is to always change the subject when they can't come up with a rational response. That's why I suggested the debate format - a moderated debate would disallow that sort of tactic.

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: 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.

I stated the topic of the debate. You know what it is. If you don't get it, that's your problem.

And yes the deck is stacked - stacked in favor of real science. That's why no one has stepped up to the plate. You've emphasized the value of reasoning on a number of occasions. This one should be a no-brainer

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 just made a post in the library thread. Here's the link to the library website:
ats-library.wix.com...#!abiogenesis/chrc

a reply to: Phantom423

I stated the topic of the debate

Could you link us to the post?

I didn't even find it in your library thread, though I admit I didn't look very hard.

And yes the deck is stacked - stacked in favor of real science.

So then, if you win, what does it prove?

Are you being strictly rational here?

a reply to: Astyanax

This conversation is over. You're asking irrelevant questions which don't require a response.

a reply to: Phantom423

You're asking irrelevant questions which don't require a response.

How can it be irrelevant to ask you to state the topic?

Don't you know how a debate works? The two sides are called the Proposition and the Opposition. The Proposition proposes a statement: in the present case it might be something like 'The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life better than the the theory (or whatever you prefer to call it) of Creationism.' The task of the Opposition is to refute that statement. They speak in turns, and when the time is up the hearers decide by vote (or some other system) to adopt or reject the proposition.

All I'm asking is for you to state your proposition. It is something you have to do anyway. One sentence, for goodness' sake? How hard can it be?

If you want to debate, you have to play by the rules of debate. Stop being huffy and state your proposition.

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.

You said that you could prove god, but how are you going to do that without being able to test or measure to verify his existence? I have a feeling that your argument will be making illogical inferences based on assumptions.

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.

Oh yeah, so simple. And you can prove all of that without referencing any science to verify it? I'm beginning to wonder what argument you could possibly make that is not based on evidence, yet still proves what you said without logical fallacies. Now this, I'd LOVE to see.