Who would like to debate me one on one?

As FSBA has stated, if an organized debate is what you are looking for, u2u either semperfortis or myself with the name of your opponent and a debate topic and we'll get you set up...

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Well, I assume that you are saying that, gravity alone does not the formation of stars and galaxies, then, assume, it your way, if you say that the the bigbang fails because of that, then, only then did scientists bring the idea of dark matter and energy, some speculate, that this must be acting from some other dimension, not yet accounted for and calculated in the big band theory, and if you see, the clusters of galaxies, you will find the presence of dark matter in the form of a halo.

And regarding the condensing of matter, you must first accept that the universe is not isotropic in nature, and though it might look like that, the universe is not uniform in all sides.

If you see some data regarding the presence of matter and anti-matter, then, you will see that there is excess of matter to anti-matter, and so, you must see that most of them annhilated in the early stages of the universe and this energy, caused density pockets, where in some region, there was a high density and low in the other, so, since everything happens on the large scale, the density change was enough for gravity to act and start collapsing the gas creating stars, and the stars must rotate to keep itself together rotating at the correct speed to prevent escape of gases.

I am not sure you understand what is the area the Theory of Evolution covers - however, not the origins of the Universe, the origings of life etc , the theory of Evolutions only explains how we managed to get from less complex forms of life to what we have now. I could debate you as I am myself a Christian, and I know exactly where you would go wrong.
So I would insist to ask you some questions like:

1) non -evolution: how do you explain that we can see galaxies that are 10 billion light years away while the speed of light seem to be constant. If you would say that the speed of light was higher in the past, then using the proven physiscs I can show you that higher speed of light in the past involves an older universe.

2) evolutionary question - according to the Bible, during the Flood of Noah , we got only one pair of each "kind" . Then the question would be - how do you explain so much variation inside one single "kind" - it suposely occured in 5 000 years. Like - from one pair of dogs, you say we can have 300 species, with some linked species like foxes etc. How can you explain endemic species, like let say Pandas that can only survive with a certain kind of plant , or animas that are so adapted to the local environment - they could not survice anywhere else. Did your Noah went to every little ireland , emvironment etc to drop a pair of animals ?

3) how do you explain the fact that the DNA confirms the evolution. And the double cromosome of humans confirms just the exact theory of evolution?

4) not the last - what are the immediate application of creationism if the theory is true. As known , evolutionary computing , evolutionary biology are largely used in research for cures, studies of viruses and bacterias etc. We all benefit from this science. Actually , the theory of evolution is even used now in creating new aircrafts - like Airbus for example. What are the exact applicationos of Creationism , what would be the benefits your theory brings?

[

- Chemical evolution (higher chemical)

- Organic evolution (origin of life)

i dont want to point out how badly this fails (ok i do really)

organic evoltuion bieng the origin of life is abiogenesis, chemical evolution is a hypothesis of abiogenesis

- Macro-evolution - animals changing into new kinds
- Micro-evolution (variation)

are exactly the same thing as well

you cant have one without the other they are the exact same thing they are just used to refer to different stages of evolution

and you must also adequatley deffine kind and type when refering to species of animal also means you have to deffine exactly what you mean by adaption instead of saying mutation, and then not use any of them as they are not scientific terms



[edit on 14/12/08 by noobfun]

I don't know offhand what the benign word for 'baiting' is, but this is it.

The latest model of Christian fundamentalism is trying to woo converts debating Evolution in the name of Creationism.

Sunday School level science is used, throwing in the odd 3 syllable world like 'molecule' and 'attraction.'

There are probalby hundreds of sites, as well as books and articles that weigh the merits of both explanations for the origins of life.

I'm waiting for the Creationists to explain who designed the Intelligent Designer in the sky.


MF

Originally posted by theindependentjournalbut a civil FACTS only debate on the theory of evolution as put forth by the big bang theory.

Mis-understand and misrepresenting evolution before the debate even starts, I see.

I am only looking to debate one person in this and I seek to tackle these parts of evolutionary theory:

- Cosmic evolution ( Big Bang - origin of matter)

Not part of evolutionary theory.

- Chemical evolution (higher chemical)

Not related to evolution by natural selection.

- Planetary and stellar evolution (origin of the stars)

Unless you're an astrophysicist skilled in differential equations and multivariable calculus, you have no place claiming knowledge about this.

- Organic evolution (origin of life)

Abiogenesis. Not part of evolutionary theory.

- Macro-evolution - animals changing into new kinds
- Micro-evolution (variation)

They are the same things, on different scales. But pretending like there's a great difference between the two is a device used by anti-evolutionists such as yourself to claim that one part of evolution is not observable or testable.

I would also like to tackle a few other evolutionary theories such as Vestigial Organs, who has used the theory in our known history and how, the Snopes Monkey trial and the verdict rendered in real life not reel life, Fossils and Strata, Know Scientific Laws, and the evolution of Evolution...

I don't see what relevance these have to the actual theory of evolution, and think that, in fact, you just want to use this section as a platform from which to claim evolution is the origin of all social wrongs.

I would like to get the most knowledgeable person available on ATS that knows the Theory and can Scientifically back up their stance. To do this we must define Science in the advance and so here it is:

You certainly do not fit the bill of someone who is scientifically educated. I am a student in the Biological Sciences and have been educated in chemistry, organismal and cell biology, and mathematics and I would hardly say I'm qualified (though more so than you, doubtlessly).

Main Entry: sci·ence Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s Function: noun : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Yep, that's science alright. Note how none of your views have been tested, or are even testable.

I look forward to a spirited and Scientific Debate with whomever you all decide is best for this task. Again only one on one and I would tell my opponent to ignore anyone but me as I will do the same. This is a debate between two not twenty two...

Not interested (though that would not make a difference, you seem to ignore all of my posts anyway, presumably because you're not able to refute them). You'll just use the tactics of Hovind- that is, ridiculing the science without actually understanding it.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by SamuraiDrifter]

reply to post by SamuraiDrifter


Touché, Sir! You've hit the nail directly on the head.

This is a debate that can not happen, at least not with someone so woefully ignorant of science and the scientific method. Not to mention a seemingly complete lack of knowledge of the various theories (all bundled up into one called, simply, 'Evolution').

Gaaah. This insanity will never end. 'Deny ignorance'? Not in this forum, apparently!

reply to post by dave420


i dunno about that dave were denying playing by ignorant rules on ignorantly abused topics

just my 2 cents but having gone to school for herpetology boas and pythons have spurs which may have been the precursors to legs which led to lizards. watch how lizards walk and they move very much like snakes. and also doesn't the flu virus evolve constantly? even if not a living organism

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by theindependentjournal

 

In case I didn't make it clear in the first post I will be taking the Anti-evolution stance in this debate...

No you didn't make it clear. Are you taking a pro-creation view? I think any logical, college educated individual would gladly crush your creationism view with molecular science.

The creationist side of this debate is "Evolution is wrong". They never provide evidence that "Creationism is right".

Anyone willing to fly into that brick wall I feel sorry for.

Originally posted by peacejet
reply to post by theindependentjournal

 

Well, I assume that you are saying that, gravity alone does not the formation of stars and galaxies, then, assume, it your way, if you say that the the bigbang fails because of that, then, only then did scientists bring the idea of dark matter and energy, some speculate, that this must be acting from some other dimension, not yet accounted for and calculated in the big band theory, and if you see, the clusters of galaxies, you will find the presence of dark matter in the form of a halo.

And regarding the condensing of matter, you must first accept that the universe is not isotropic in nature, and though it might look like that, the universe is not uniform in all sides.

If you see some data regarding the presence of matter and anti-matter, then, you will see that there is excess of matter to anti-matter, and so, you must see that most of them annhilated in the early stages of the universe and this energy, caused density pockets, where in some region, there was a high density and low in the other, so, since everything happens on the large scale, the density change was enough for gravity to act and start collapsing the gas creating stars, and the stars must rotate to keep itself together rotating at the correct speed to prevent escape of gases.

I posted all so people get the context befor i snip bits

one thing sticks out to me " not yet accounted for and calculated "

So very true NOT calculated!!

How can We Base our MATHAMATICS on something WE DO NOT understand

do you see were we get the oddness? LOL it makes me want to cry infact..
tho i do not wish for pitty or to be told its ok chap..

Look at like sir look at everything we are told read listen think ect

then apply maths ! you will get some very freaky outcomes

We dont live in infitinty UR JUST TO SMALL we dont have loops WE JUST KNOW THEY ARE THERE

THERE AINT NO BIG BANG ... why? becouse u cant bang crap look at life and it will show u that

How hard is it for people to understand the BIRTH of the universe "not my words but thiers"

I Just used maths to hit them over the head with there OWN CRAP the feed everyone

feel free to argue and ill hit u with every single book you have ever read reagarding human life.. And that sir is a fact..

1+1 sure as hell is 2 But then why leave yourself out? 1+1=3 best u understand that little odd ness

was not a flame just wanted to add to you very well writting post

reply to post by mmiichael


" I'm waiting for the Creationists to explain who designed the Intelligent Designer in the sky. "

And I'm waiting for the evolutionists to explain where all the stuff of the world came from? and how it managed to organize itself with no outside help at all.

Originally posted by toasted
And I'm waiting for the evolutionists to explain where all the stuff of the world came from? and how it managed to organize itself with no outside help at all.

well none of thats evolution maybe try theroetical physics, astro physics and a few other fields of science that arnt biology(evolution)

Just in case you don't know what you're being offered:

If you get Semperfortis or MemoryShock to set this up as a debate in the Debate Forum, no one will be able to post in the thread except the two Fighters.

Since it would be a Challenge Match, you could work out terms - usually each Fighter has 5 turns total, with limits on sources and images. But that would be negotiable as long as you and your opponent could agree.

At the end, a panel of anonymous judges randomly chosen from a pool that the Debate Forum Mods maintain could judge the debate.

It would, in other words, make your proposal actually feasible. It's going to be pretty hard to do that out on the open boards, at least until you bore everyone else to tears.

P.S.- If you decide to go the Debate Forum route, and also to break up your topic and take on the points one by one, I'd be interested in arguing "Chemical Evolution", "Evolution of Life", "Macroevolution" or "Microevolution".

[edit on 12/14/08 by americandingbat]

I would be interested in debating you on this subject, I'm no scientist but i am in a similar position to your own in that I'm pretty much housebound and have too much free time on my hands, I haven't had a structured debate since university but id be very happy to flex the old brain cells with you.

If evolution doesn't touch on the origins of life or the universe then what the heck is all the fuss about? Really, cause i get caught up in the evolution/creation debate a lot, and being a laymen, it's hard to get the truth. I've been given lnks to things on both sides that seem right until i read the other side's retort, and it goes on and on and on until i fall asleep on the couch. I'm so sick of deciding if a source is credible or not...ugh......

reply to post by theindependentjournal


Things, even gases, "lump together" by a force called gravity. It is an attractive force and keeps all of us on the Earth.

The Big Bang is noted in the Bible. The phrase is "Let there be light." Intelligent design started with the Big Bang when the all knowing Creator arranged all the particles 15 billion years ago to result in our universe, including Earth. The Earth was allowed to evolve, planned by the all-knowing Creator, through billions of years, and creatures were allowed to evolve on it. Creatures intelligent enough to see what the Creator had done and love the all-knowing Creator and work to understand for themselves what he had created. Some of the evolved creatures were closed minded and worshipped a vengeful, lying god who they thought put dinosaur bones in rocks to test their faith. The real Creator, who planned all from the moment He created the universe, laughed at his slow children and their self-righteousness as they read their Bibles literally. He asked them if they thought that the Bible had the entire history of man written down, or only a few important parts. He asked if they realized that only a very small part of the history of man was written and that the stories were meant to be instructive, only. They did not respond, because they were too busy reading and listening to poorly educated, hypocritical TV preachers. He was saddened but understanding of their stubborn exclusion of their fellow man who believed differently. He understood that their attacks on science were mainly because they understood it not and were grasping at superficial religious beliefs in a world that was changing in frightening ways. They were "straining the gnat and swallowing the camel" to quote the book he allowed them to write. He knows that they might realize that by changing the school curricula in their states that they will doom their children in medicine and the life sciences because prayer does not always heal the sick.
It is his hope that someday they will understand how wonderful he truly is to be able to start with nothing and create a magnificent and beautiful universe and that they will open their minds to knowledge without fear of him. The lesser creator that needs to fool them is not really there, for he is a false god, but the Creator knew some of his children might err in this way, and he forgives them, of course, because they are trying as best they can.

Intelligent Designer

I would disagree rather strongly with the "Intelligent Designer" argument. 99% of all species on earth have gone extinct, stars are constantly blowing themselves up, there are volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, the polio virus, tuberculosis, bubonic plague….and so on.


In addition, the "Intelligent Designer" argument itself is flawed. Why? Because the argument states that anything as "wondrously" complex as the universe must require a designer. If true, then that means that anything as "wondrously" complex as an "Intelligent Designer" also requires a designer! Think about it. And that regresses into infinity.


[edit on 15-12-2008 by _R^z_]

[edit on 15-12-2008 by _R^z_]

Originally posted by _R^z_

Originally posted by mmiichael

Intelligent Designer

I would disagree rather strongly with the "Intelligent Designer" argument. 99% of all species on earth have gone extinct, stars are constantly blowing themselves up, there are volcanoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, the polio virus, tuberculosis, bubonic plague….and so on.


In addition, the "Intelligent Designer" argument itself is flawed. Why? Because the argument states that anything as "wondrously" complex as the universe must require a designer. If true, then that means that anything as "wondrously" complex as an "Intelligent Designer" also requires a designer! Think about it. And that regresses into infinity.

Not really your making quite a large assumption, that an intelligent designer outside of our creation resembles anything that you may find within our creation. Even if we assume there is some kind of creative being that does require itself a creator, that in itself also does not mean such a being could not go on to create our universe. Myself I believe that the ultimate divine god essence whatever you want to call it evolved over time before it began the act of creation, but that's another subject for another time, and there is no real evidence for a basis of a discussion on the origin of such a being.

As for things dying so their cant be an intelligent designer, that's part of the design surely ? Things play their part and then they move on, life and death, its a fundamental principle of our existence, a universal law if you like that nothing escapes, if their wasn't a designer who put that law into place shouldn't there be some example of immortality around somewhere ?

You dont know what the design is and therefore there is no design ? Do you understand the incredibly vast array of complex life just on this planet, the delicate balanced eco-systems, just on earth let alone anywhere else ? What about the complex laws of physics which govern the physical nature of things ? That came about because the cosmos rolled some dice ? You would rather believe that than try and explore the idea of an intelligent designer, don't get me wrong if someone could actually disapprove god to me I'd be able to accept that, at least im open minded, you appear to have already made up your mind on a subject that currently cant be proved either way.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal

- Cosmic evolution ( Big Bang - origin of matter)
- Chemical evolution (higher chemical)
- Planetary and stellar evolution (origin of the stars)
- Organic evolution (origin of life)
- Macro-evolution - animals changing into new kinds
- Micro-evolution (variation)

I cannot debate with you for these reasons.

1. You state organic evolution is the "origin of life" and yet this isn't true. What you are looking for is abiogenesis.

2. You seem to tie in the idea of evolution with the beginning of everything.