Continuing Challenge to Creationists

a reply to: Phantom423

I'll take that as a forfeit.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Your choice.

a reply to: Phantom423

You can't run or hide

Here I am

You can Run hide

I like Christians, was married to one, was a prick of a husband

State your topic or run and hide

You called the debate, maybe default to Grim if you are fearful of me
One request, define your question

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

How does protein folding support creationism?

a reply to: Phantom423

a reply to: TzarChasm

It doesn't. I never said I was arguing for creationism. I am just showing him the what he thinks is fact is far from it. Contrary to popular belief you don't have to produce an alternative explanation to show that one explanation is not adequate for explaining observed phenomena. Its kinda like someone claiming a blue balloon is red. I don't have to know the color of the balloon is blue all I have to know is what "red" is to tell that the balloon isn't red.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Cool post

You want to debate

Everyone else here is asking and then running and hiding


Please?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Eh...no. Even if I had a smoking gun and a written confession from the man who fired it, it wouldn't matter. I interpret this thread as more of a social experiment than an actual attempt at debating. The public response was the point. Me, I'm just here for the comments, although I'm not above a question or two for my personal benefit.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I would consider it but as a whole the average non creationist hasn't the manners I would be comfortable dealing with.
Also I am not a fundamental Christian, have just read the opposing view to evolution and can see a validity in the argument

Maybe leave creation out of the argument and just debate the science of evolution based on its merits, standing alone

I don't believe in the theory of evolution as it stands

Why not present the creationist argument for creation if you see validity in it?

Even if you were able to completely falsify the TOE, it wouldn't in any way validate the creationist position.

Or is it that deep down you're aware that the creationist argument for life on earth is based on magic and superstition?

a reply to: Prezbo369

Because thats pitting a philosophy against a science. Doesn't really make a lot of sense.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Prezbo369

Because thats pitting a philosophy against a science. Doesn't really make a lot of sense.

Are you saying there is no scientific basis for creationism?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well it depends on what you mean by creationism. There are a lot of assumptions people make when you say your creationist. If I were to label myself as much all I would mean by that is that I believe the word is the product of a creative being. But what I am saying is even if you look creationism it is a philosophy about the nature of reality as well as a science. Evolution is strictly a scientific theory so it doesn't get the leisure of possible worlds and hypotheticals like a philosophy would be entitled to. Yet as you'll see people like dawkins resort to these often. For example, when he talks about the evolution of an eye would just need a cell with light sensitiveness. Thats a possible world he has no evidence for. Not to mention its a possible world that just assumes cells can evolve light sensitivity which is a complex process in and of itself. When people speak like that about what they are supposed to be thinking of as a scientific data is shows you they've gone from being a scientist to being a preacher. He doesn't follow the evidence he assumes evidence that would fit his philosophy.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well it depends on what you mean by creationism. There are a lot of assumptions people make when you say your creationist. If I were to label myself as much all I would mean by that is that I believe the word is the product of a creative being.

The common creationist is the one attempting to replace evolution in the science class/arena with 'creationism'. Most, if not all theists think/hope that the world was created by a 'high being'......

But what I am saying is even if you look creationism it is a philosophy about the nature of reality as well as a science.

This contradicts what you said in your last comment then doesn't it.

Evolution is strictly a scientific theory so it doesn't get the leisure of possible worlds and hypotheticals like a philosophy would be entitled to.

A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation of a phenomenon based on evidence. If there was evidence for 'other worlds' or pixies then there's no reason they couldn't have their own scientific theory.....

Yet as you'll see people like dawkins resort to these often. For example, when he talks about the evolution of an eye would just need a cell with light sensitiveness. Thats a possible world he has no evidence for. Not to mention its a possible world that just assumes cells can evolve light sensitivity which is a complex process in and of itself. When people speak like that about what they are supposed to be thinking of as a scientific data is shows you they've gone from being a scientist to being a preacher.

Then this must burn some....

He doesn't follow the evidence he assumes evidence that would fit his philosophy.

Typical theistic projection.

You must really really wish that this was true......lol

This really was hilarious response.


Prezbo369, thanks for great link... had no idea about that one cell organism.

It is sad state and times for creationist, here on ATS or in RL...

www.patheos.com...

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Phantom
Quite frankly I dislike you
I think you are both rude and arrogant

What would be the benefit to me to debate you

I have read many of your comments in this particular forum and your stock and trade is attacking people, not the argument but the person

Not interested

Read this thread and see how you attack the person not the issue.
I don't want to be a part of that

Are you serious? Your very first lines are personal insults that focus on the person, not the argument, and you have the gall to accuse her of this? I have never seen her make an argument on the person rather than the topic. She may attack people's ARGUMENTS, but she does not generally attack them personally.

a reply to: Astyanax

I have great respect and admiration for you, and I see where you are coming from. But, from what I have observed Phantom has not given a proposition, because she is waiting for one of the anti evolution people to pick a topic of debate. A simple propostion of "science holds more weigh than ID" or "creationist science is not actual science" may be a bit too broad for a formal debate.

We aren't in the official debate yet, this thread is merely to find an opponent and let them pick a topic. That was the challenge. I feel that the ground rules and thread will be set up once this part is chosen. A few folks have expressed interest but either won't pick a topic to debate or claim that science should not be part of it.

Sorry. Not been round for a couple of days. I'm still up for the challenge. I didn't realise the God supporters could pick the topic. Here you go:

"The end of the line? Homosexuality and its persistence is better explained by evolution or God's intervention?"

If the evolution argument wants to rely on science, so be it. I'll probably be using some as well. I appreciate its a tough topic for both sides but it's relevant at the moment in society and it might attract a wider audience.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Phantom
Quite frankly I dislike you
I think you are both rude and arrogant

What would be the benefit to me to debate you

I have read many of your comments in this particular forum and your stock and trade is attacking people, not the argument but the person

Not interested

Read this thread and see how you attack the person not the issue.
I don't want to be a part of that

Are you serious? Your very first lines are personal insults that focus on the person, not the argument, and you have the gall to accuse her of this? I have never seen her make an argument on the person rather than the topic. She may attack people's ARGUMENTS, but she does not generally attack them personally.

Thank you for that, Barcs. I never intentionally insulted anyone. I just try to make my point. I understand there are different opinions. But rational people can discuss or debate opinions and compare their evidence. That's all I was trying to do.

Thanks again.

a reply to: Barcs

We aren't in the official debate yet, this thread is merely to find an opponent and let them pick a topic.

The OP doesn't seem to understand what a debate is.

She's afraid to debate an unfalsifiable claim. She is apparently unaware that nobody except an idiot will debate falsifiable claims. Falsifiable claims aren't debated, they are scientifically tested, and based on the outcome of the test, are judged true or false and there's an end to it. Debates are only ever held over unfalsifiable statements; otherwise the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

This thread has the look of a sad little exercise in self-reassurance. As long as the OP dangles the possibility of a debate in the air but bats away any hand that reaches up to accept the challenge, she can go on claiming she's already won. It's a common playground strategy, familiar to everyone from their primary-school days.

If the OP were serious about a debate, she would have posted her challenge in the Debate Forum Thread over a year ago. I looked all the way to 1 Jan 2013 and there isn't a post by her on that thread. Mark my words, she will never debate anyone who poses her a serious challenge.

I believe that what we're seeing here is a case of religious panic. Just as there are many whose fervent defence of the Creationist position conceals grave but secret doubts, so it is with many on the opposite side. I've seen it claimed in this forum that the word 'evolutionist' is a misnomer. Well, here are 17 pages of evidence that it isn't. The OP is an evolutionist: someone to whom evolution is a central doctrine in a scientistic faith that she has never questioned. That is why she is afraid to debate the validity of empiricism, or of science. Not only would it be blasphemy, but the psychic consequences of doubting would be insupportable.

If I am wrong about all this, let her prove it by proposing a genuine debating topic and posting it in the Debate Forum Thread the way she's supposed to. I will look for it there; as far as I'm concerned this hopeless via dolorosa of a thread is over.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Yeah, evidence has to be falsifiable. No way around that.