Posted 1 year, 5 months ago in 
Loading ...
Why are the evolutionists so opposed to having a debate on the subject of intelligent design versus evolution?
If creationists don’t have an argument, won’t that become very clear very quickly? The public would be able to judge for themselves which side had the most sensible case. How could that be a drawback? Or is the public unable to think for itself?
Professor Bishop seems to think that the public would be confused by such a debate. Are the evolutionists afraid that they might lose the debate? Professor Bishop has defined a good theory as one “which withstands all empirical attempts to refute it.” Even Darwin stated in the Origin of Species that “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question …”
Are the evolutionists now too cowardly to allow someone to try to publicly refute their theory? If they aren’t, why don’t we start the debate with something simple, such as spontaneous generation and the origin of life?
TRISHA YEAGER
Grand Junction
257 Responses to “Why won’t the evolutionists debate?”
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:02 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
As if the issue has never been debated. As if ‘intelligent design’ has not been thoroughly discredited, most recently and spectacularly in Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now, all the young lady is asking for is just one of the scholars that haunt this board to publicly debate her.
That really doesn’t seem like much of a problem, until you remember that none of the bombastic buffoons on here are willing to be publicly humiliated by a mere high school child.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Not at all, Willis. The simple fact is that oral debates are simply not balanced on this subject. The creationist can make ten claims about how evolution is wrong in ten minutes, and proper answers to those claims would take two hours. Science is not usually condensable into sound bites.
A better question is, why won’t creationists accept written or internet debates, where links to relevant information can be given so the audience can truly see the evidence for themselves?
I would be happy to have a debate with Ms. Yeager. Let’s start a thread in the forums and get to it. Willis has certainly provided no challenge.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Trish: “Are the evolutionists now too cowardly to allow someone to try to publicly refute their theory?”
As has been pointed out before, scientific theories are refuted by the publication of contrary evidence in the scientific literature, not by public debate and popularity contests. Since there are no papers in the last 50 or so years in the scientific literature which in any way refute the accepted principles of evolution, what is there to debate except faith based vs evidence based conclusion? If someone says “my faith tells me that my god created all life exactly as it is” what is left to say in response (except maybe good luck in trying to prove that)?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, you are indeed an expert in the subject, and I would be thrilled to see you represent the side of truth.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 11:00 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
toaaronuu,
Hardly an expert, just an interested amateur. But thanks for the vote of confidence!
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 11:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
From scott:
” Because I see people like you who spread nonsense as a grave threat to the future of this country. I do not want my kids being taught science by popular opinion. This country is losing ground fast in science and technology, and a big reason are the religious fundamentalists who think science is done by majority vote. You keep saying you’re not a creationist, Willis, but you use the same bad arguments and the same debate tactics – assert, don’t support and ignore. There is no practical difference between you and a creationist.”
I also believe that the schools should not teach by popular opinion.
The country is losing fast due entirely to the influence of the assorted teachers unions and the fanatics in the dept of education that are intentionally dumbing down the education system of this country.
My ‘arguments keep pointing out the failings of evolution, which you dismiss with a wave of your hand and “well, you just don’t understand”.
The problem is Scott, that you refuse to understand.
Evolution is a government established religion that is being taught as fact in the public school system.
So, why not take the young lady’s offer of a public debate?
You seem to feel that your words here are overwhelmingly and indisputable.
So a common little school girl should be no problem.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 11:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Reading comprehension problems again, Willis? From my 10:43 post:
“I would be happy to have a debate with Ms. Yeager. Let’s start a thread in the forums and get to it. Willis has certainly provided no challenge.”
“The country is losing fast due entirely to the influence of the assorted teachers unions and the fanatics in the dept of education that are intentionally dumbing down the education system of this country.”
And the primary reason they are doing this is fear of the backlash that religious fundamentalists cause when their children are taught something that disagrees with their beliefs.
“Evolution is a government established religion that is being taught as fact in the public school system.”
Because it IS a fact. That evolution occurs can not be denied. Descent with modification, the change in the alleles of a population over time and the other mechanisms that evolution operates by, are facts. They have been observed both in the lab and in the field. The theory of evolution is the explanation for those observations. That you cannot seem to understand something this simple is not a problem for real science in the least.
“So, why not take the young lady’s offer of a public debate?”
See above.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 11:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I’ve just read Michael Shermer’s book “Why Darwin Matters,” and the arguments you have presented here over the last few weeks are just as cogent and understandable as Shermer’s. Might be a future in it for you.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 1:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
no scottie, no reading problem on my part, just a coomprehension problem on your part.
She is asking for a “PUBLIC DEBATE”.
I think she intends to sit on a stage, with a podium, and chairs for the participants and DEBATE the issue IN PERSON.
Now, if she isn’t afraid of how the public views her and her opinions, why are you?
This is your big chance to make a name for yourself scott.
Go for it little buddy.
maybe gene can come help between appearances at the council meetings…
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The real difficulty, the one lying at the very bottom of this “creationist” fantasy, is that in order to believe in “creationism” one must first accept the notion that there is a creator; i.e. “god” to do the creating. It does not take much of an intellectual effort to understand that simple fact.
If one does not accept the predicate (which is necessary in order to proceed) in this question, or even if there is serious
doubt as to the existence of such a being, it does no good to proceed into “creationism”. That would be like attempting to erect a stucture upon some non-existent or imaginary foundation.
If some individual can “prove” that a deity exist, and can provide all of the attributes of such a “being” (that is which is necessary in order to obtain a true definition), the perhaps a discussion between “creaionism” and “evolution” might be of some value. Until such, any such discussion or debate would be a waste of time and, in the very best case scenario would be but an academic exercise, one of little worth in fostering any further knowledge or understanding.
Now, this may be offensive to some “creationists” but, could it possibly be that they need some “god”, that in order to feel more important than they really are?
As to Ms. Yaeger’s statement that “creationism” is a theory, it is no such thing. What it is, is a “belief”, and without any scientific foundation whatever. The question they fequently ask as their only basis is: How else do you explain our being here? And that, is not an answer but a question. One does not base “theory” on question, but on the answers to many questions.
Ms. Yaeger and others may amuse themselves all they want with their empty rhetoric on this issue, and accuse others of being “afraid” to engage in a “debate” to refute “creationism.” It may make them feel good. However, any individual with even a basic understanding of logic recognize that there is nothing to refute, as “creationism” is but a “figment of the mind”, and a not too clever way to establish a “deity.”
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 1:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes, I think there is a reading problem. Once again, from my 10:43 AM post:
“The simple fact is that oral debates are simply not balanced on this subject. The creationist can make ten claims about how evolution is wrong in ten minutes, and proper answers to those claims would take two hours. Science is not usually condensable into sound bites.”
Oral debates are not “fair” on this subject. Unfortunately, science is not like creationism. Creationism is simple. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to understand, and its proponents are experts at appeals to emotion (like yours) that have nothing to do with the actual topic. On the other side, these take time to explain to the audience why the creationists’ “arguments” are not valid.
In an oral debate, the creationists can cover twice as much ground as the evolution proponent, and thus make it seem like the evolutionist cannot answer all the charges. This is why creationists want live debates, and why evolutionists do not accept them.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 1:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, still no reading problem.
It’s real simple Scott, be a man (as gene tells others to do), step up to the plate and accept her offer to a PUBLIC DEBATE.
Apparently, Bob from Delta is willing to appear on stage and lend his considerable talent to help your defend your “No Other God Before Mine” stance.
Go for it, I think you can take her with no problem.
I mean, look at the whole picture Scott, she’s just a kid in school with no long term, historical reference to fall back on.
This should be a no-brainer for you. (not meant to imply that you are a no-brainer).
Do it buddy.
You’re not afraid of a little school girl are you Scott?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 2:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The opponent isn’t the issue - it’s the content. The validity of evolution - or anything else in science - is not decided in a public forum. Whether the audience is convinced or not has no bearing whatsoever on the truth. In fact, since these types of debates are so heavily slanted towards the creationists, just from the amount of information that needs to be presented by each side, they frequently result in people being convinced that evolution cannot answer many of the questions, when it’s really just a question of time allowed to answer.
Once again, I offer a written debate on this forum. Written debates allow additional information to be linked to, and without time limits each side has an equal opportunity to present their case. Surely the creationists have no fear from that, if their case is so convincing?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 2:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Trisha Yeager,
YOU GO GIRL.
They are not afraid they will lose, they know they will lose. That’s why they slink back under the rock from whence they came.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 2:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
To all the evolutionist theorists posting above,
What could you possibly not bring to a public debate? What if we had a series of debates, then we could do it in a public forum.
You big “egos” are all “I can prove what I am saying”, “There is scientific evidence to prove”.
So are you all bluster? In plain language, “You walk the walk, do you talk the talk?”
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am appalled by the schoolyard goading, “ooh are you afraid of the little girl” tactics being leveled against Scott.
This is a public debate right here (for anyone who can read or write). A stand up debate would be nothing but an embarrassing spectacle and would not allow enough time for either “side” to present a proper case.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 2:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sounds like a serious case of backpedaling going on here scott.
I’m betting you can make her look like the insignificant little school girl you think she is.
You are aware, you may lose some credibility if you don’t?
Bob and gene and the t(whatever) is always willing to appear on stage with you for moral support and backup.
It’s your best move to prove your case.
I say go for it.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gee ashhugger, I don’t think Trisha has any such fears.
Well, at least she’s not the person doing the squirming.
And it really is a credibility issue.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Certainly. Let’s start a thread in the Forum section. I am happy do defend the science of evolution and demonstrate how creationism is nothing more than attempts to legitimize mythology. Bring it on!
Will it be Trish herself participating, or the professor she mentioned? Will there be limits to what is discussed or are any arguments allowable? Often these debates are limited to certain aspects of the issue just in the interest of simplifying things, but I am up for the whole shebang.
Shall I go ahead and start a thread?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh and american_patriot … people who believe in evolution “slink back under the rock”? Would you say that about a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or anyone else who doesn’t believe exactly what you believe? Or is it just a nasty insult you reserve for evolutionists?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Gee Willis … Whatever!
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger,
Insults and goads pretty much all they have. If they had any actual science to back them up, they would not need these childish tactics. Willis keeps saying he’s not a creationist, but you certainly can’t tell from his behavior here. He shows all the signs.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, that is what bothers me. I am all for anyone choosing to believe whatever they want but why do they have to repeatedly insult me (and you and anyone else) because we believe something else?
Would Ms. Yeager et al gang up and goad Muslims into a debate on who is the true savior?
I say to those who don’t believe in evolution, more power to them. It must come out of a strong faith. But why try to change what other people believe? And worse, insult us in the process?
I can’t tell what the motivation is here.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why not a public debate? I think we could get the City Auditorium. I am sure the media would cover the event. Judging by the evolutionists posts on this site, they think it is a “lead pipe cinch”. What’s to hide? Isn’t the object to present your information to the public? There is no better way to talk to someone than face to face. I just can’t understand the reluctance, I mean, after all, win, lose or draw, it is an opportunity to present your side. I don’t believe that I have ever heard of a subject that was not debatable. If you don’t feel that you would have enough time, then negotiate time. I, for one, would be very interested in hearing a public debate. The idea is to inform, right?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sure was nice of the troll to volunteer a little girl to do his dirty work for him. Nowhere in her moronic letter does she volunteer to be the debater.
As for granny and am-pat, as stated most eloquently by Mr. Laitres, there really is no debate to be had. It’s like this: both sides have a bag full of something, you say yours is full of oranges, we say ours is full of apples. Problem with your side of the debate, you can’t open the bag. Ours opens right up and everyone can see the apples. You can take all day at a public debate, talking about your delicious oranges, and trying to convince everyone our bag is empty, but at the end of the day our bag opens, and yours stays closed. I put my money on the apples.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Typical.
” ashhugger
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:07 pm PM This User Report this comment
Gee Willis … Whatever! ”
Spoken like a nine year old.
” I say to those who don’t believe in evolution, more power to them. It must come out of a strong faith. But why try to change what other people believe? And worse, insult us in the process? ”
Exactly what scott, gene, bobbie and others have been doing in the forums, as well as in the letters section.
Now scott is running from any possible public viewing of his beliefs.
Why?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Is the idea really to inform? How can one “prove” belief (or lack thereof?)
At essence it would be a debate over the existence of God. I just don’t see how that works, when believing in God is a matter of faith.
And who would actually learn anything from such a spectacle?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” toaaronuu
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:21 pm PM This User Report this comment
Sure was nice of the troll to volunteer a little girl to do his dirty work for him. Nowhere in her moronic letter does she volunteer to be the debater. ”
I missed the post where you volunteered her.
She has been trying for quite some time to find some ‘evolutionist’ to debate her.
She did have a ‘professor’ lined up, but he had to bow out…
Hmmm, sounds familiar.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
P.S. Willis — Whatever!
Love,
your 9 year old friend
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Okay, everybody that believes that their opposition will suddenly have an epiphany and say “By Golly You Were Right”, please raise their hand.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger,
No the rock is reserved just for evolutionists. It is just so descriptive, don’t you think? I mean, this is something that is not abstract. When you say it, you get a mental picture. As for Muslims and Buddhists, they will readily admit theirs is a faith based belief. And I have yet to see one slink away from a debate (God, I love that word, slink, it is just so descriptive, don’t you think). As for the rest of the worlds population, I am aware of a small number who don’t agree with me on EVERYTHING, however I have great confidence that they will soon be brought to Jesus. Or, at the very least, they will see the error of their ways. I just love that term, error of their ways, very descriptive, don’t you think? Yes, I am a very intuitive person, and right now, I can read your mind. Something about arrogance. Intuitive, don’t you think?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger:”Oh and american_patriot … people who believe in evolution “slink back under the rock”? Would you say that about a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or anyone else who doesn’t believe exactly what you believe? Or is it just a nasty insult you reserve for evolutionists?”
No Ashhugger he specifically insults anyone with whom he disagrees. This is mild compared to some of the names he has called me on these forums which is why I no longer respond to anything he says.
Debate? No debate is possible with people whose idea of evidence is “…because it says so in the Bible”. Show me a single scrap of evidence published in a scientific journal which supports their view and I would be the first to volunteer to debate.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Seriously, what is the motivation behind calling for a debate?
Do the creationists want to instill faith in those who have none (or not enough, in their estimation)? Is it a recruiting or proselytizing effort?
And to my fellow evolutionists what is the point of trying to “prove” something to someone that goes against their faith? Do we want to take away people’s faith? I sure don’t; that is why I havee’t participated in any of the specific “scientific proof” discussions on this forum.
I find it equally disrespectful to try to make people believe something they don’t, or to try to make people disbelieve something they do.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I see Jen once again said everything I was trying to say in far fewer words.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 4:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now I understand, there is no point to public debate. This pronouncement would seem the last refuge of evolutionary thought.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 4:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
American_Patriot!
Now you’ve gone and done it!
You’ve been elevated to my level!
” Classof52
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 3:35 pm PM This User Report this comment
Ashhugger:”Oh and american_patriot … people who believe in evolution “slink back under the rock”? Would you say that about a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or anyone else who doesn’t believe exactly what you believe? Or is it just a nasty insult you reserve for evolutionists?”
No Ashhugger he specifically insults anyone with whom he disagrees. This is mild compared to some of the names he has called me on these forums which is why I no longer respond to anything he says.”
But, you will notice the air is a little fresher, and a little cleaner up here.
Congratulations on your advancement.
” Debate? No debate is possible with people whose idea of evidence is “…because it says so in the Bible”. Show me a single scrap of evidence published in a scientific journal which supports their view and I would be the first to volunteer to debate. ”
Oh, this should be good.
I can see the Marquee now…
” TONIGHT ONLY!!!
The Creationist Bible pitted against the Cartoonist Bible!”
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 4:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Of course there can be value in public debate, but again tell me (one.voice or anyone else) what specifically would be the value of this one?
How does one “inform” others about faith, or lack of it?
What is the motivation in calling for such a debate? What is hoped to be achieved?
I guess I have to keep asking these questions until someone provides a real answer.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Now scott is running from any possible public viewing of his beliefs.”
Hardly. I’m trying to hold the debate in a forum where the public can view my views in their entirety, instead of just the compressed sound bite version.
A forum where not only do both sides have an equal opportunity to make their full arguments, but can also hyperlink to additional information and original source material.
A forum where people can read the debate from all over the world, not just the relative few that could attend an oral debate. Far more of the public could thus be enlightened, one way or the other, and the debate would be visible for a much longer time.
Now why wouldn’t the creationists welcome such an opportunity?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 4:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The issues of evolution versus creationism/intelligent design (the same thing in a slightly different package for marketing purposes) is really a meaningless “red herring.” If one believes in the concept of a “universal creator” who created all life, then what difference does it really make whether we humans began at the bottom of a slime pool or arrived “as is?” I would contend that the important thing is that we are at the top of the food chain. For those who do not believe in a universal creator, the entire issue is irrelevant. Why get upset by something as intellectually trivial as evolution vs creationism/intelligent design?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 4:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, while I do see more value in an online debate, really what is the point in engaging in this particular debate at all, written or stand up?
Are you going to change anyone’s mind? Do you really even want to?
See my questions in post 34 (and 38). And Jen’s in post 31. WHAT is the point? Can anyone here answer that?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 4:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot: “Why get upset by something as intellectually trivial as evolution vs creationism/intelligent design?”
The reason to get upset is that the so-called intelligent design religious right believers have been trying at every turn to introduce their faith based belief into the public school curriculum on an equal footing with real science. No one would tolerate the substitution of astrology for astronomy in schools or the substitution of numerology for mathematics, but some are somehow persuaded that it is “only fair to hear the other viepoint”.
In order to have some basis for this introduction (which is clearly just a way to begin teaching the Christian religion in the public schools) the ID people have been desperately trying to get some sort of intellectual respectability for their views (even to the point of starting their own “scientific” journal). However as of this writing no peer reviewed journal of science has published one iota of their religious crap. They have no intellectual leg to stand on.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think Ms. Yeager’s question in the original letter is beggining to be answered.
As an “evolutionist’ personally I wouldn’t want to win such a debate, any more than I would want to go around telling young children there is no Santa Claus. So why would I put time and effort into a debate that I would not even care to win?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 4:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quoting Classof52:
“However as of this writing no peer reviewed journal of science has published one iota of their religious crap.”
Being “right” doesn’t mean one has to be rude, does it? No wonder so many religious fundamentalists are upset with we “non-believers”; because some of us can’t resist the urge to be insulting.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 5:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I just noticed that Ms. Yeager makes on very basic error in her letter. She equates evolution with the origin of life. Evolution and abiogenesis are two very different subjects. While creationists often equate the two, they are distinct branches of science.
As for why evolutionists are afraid to debate the issue, it seems that is not true at all. I am perfectly willing to debate the issue. The question seem to be why aren’t evolutionists willing to debate the issue in a manner in which they cannot win. If they really need help with that question, then there is really no point to discuss the issue in the first place.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 5:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52-I’m obviously aware of what the intelligent design advocates have been doing. I said what I said to steer the conversation to the real issue - the fact that this is really a battle between science and the Book of Genesis (”hard evidence” versus “religious fantasy”).
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 5:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, it’s a consensus then?
No debates in public?
” Are the evolutionists now too cowardly to allow someone to try to publicly refute their theory? If they aren’t, why don’t we start the debate with something simple, such as spontaneous generation and the origin of life? ”
Yes Trisha, sad but true.
They can’t even bring themselves to admit that without a beginning of life, there is nothing to evolve from.
But their theory depends on evolution starting at the beginning of life, otherwise their whole scenario falls apart.
Alas and Alack. ’tis not to be.
Nary a courageous soul to fend off the horrid little school girl.
What is this world coming (to-too-two-tu)?
’tis a pity really, all that courage to hide in the shadows and spew their tales from the dim recesses of anonymity but no defender stalwart enough to appear in public, face to face.
Well, so much for credibility. (or honesty, or integrity, or…)
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 5:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Amazing that you can write about credibility while completely ignoring my offer for the debate. That one taxed even my industrial strength irony meter.
Apparently, the creationists need the unbalanced and transitory nature of an oral debate in order to claim a victory. They know that allowing the other side to bring the full weight of the evidence to bear would get them laughed off the stage (figuratively speaking).
You’d think that for all their chatter about all the evidence on their side, they wouldn’t be afraid of a level playing field.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 5:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Now we are debating the debate. I suppose there is a point to that, so here goes. Throughout history, people have argued, discussed and debated such things as politics, religion, and even evolution. Wanting to present your ideas to another person, face to face, in the hopes that they may accept your ideas, faith based or otherwise, is simply being human. And it is an art form, rather than a science. It is as difficult to master as being a good story teller. To assume that your listener cannot separate fact from fiction, belief from non-belief, or assertion from fact is perceived as a slight to the listener. As surely as refusal to debate is perceived as a weakness in defense of your issue. At best, an antisocial at work. To assert a specific idea or view point in the absence of a willingness to debate the issue is nothing more than an interruption. It has been presented, on this forum, that the issue has no more evidence on one side than it does the other. A fair beginning. It is evident there is an assumption that most of all persons (public) are irrevocably locked in to a belief of one side of the issue or the other. I submit this is not a fact in evidence. I believe that the human mind in malleable, especially as to beliefs. What else would account for the diversity in belief, witnessed over the entire world. Concerns have been voiced that without scientific evidence there is a stalemate. Nothing could be further from the truth. People (the public) are quite perceptive and make value judgments based upon their perception of honesty, integrity, and sincerity, as well as depth of knowledge, preparation and presentation. We make these value judgments every day. They are present in who we vote for, who we marry, even to whom we give a tip. The very act of making a value judgment is personal and not scientifically quantifiable, but it is most often the basis for accepting a belief. To discount this human element is to be disingenuous, and that is the general perception of a person who chooses to interrupt with an assertion. but reneges when offered an opportunity to publicly debate it, face to face.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 5:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Still no one answering my question.
Except for the sniping and some theories as to why the “other side” wants to debate …
Since it is mostly evolutionists (and Willis, whatever he is) posting here right now, let’s start with you:
Why would you want to debate the creationists AT ALL? What would you hope to achieve?
As one evolutionist I already gave my answer: I see no value in such a debate, would see nothing good coming of it, and would not even desire to “win” because I would take no pleasure in “proving” that someone’s faith is “wrong.”
How about the rest of you?
I ask the same of the creationists but am not holding my breath for an answer.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 5:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK now we are getting somewhere; one.voice I appreciate your answer. While it is all very reasonable here is where we differ. When you say “Wanting to present your ideas to another person, face to face, in the hopes that they may accept your ideas, faith based or otherwise, is simply being human.”
I just feel as humans it is better to resist trying to get people to “accept our ideas” when these ideas are a matter of faith (or lack of faith).
I resent when people try to convince me to take on their faith (it usually ends up with “get the !@#$ off my porch).
… and I can only imagine it is just as infuriating for those who hold a faith to have someone try to convince them that they shouldn’t.
That is why I view this particular topic as a poor candidate for meaningful public debate.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 6:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Again, the perception that all persons are locked in on one side or the other. There would be no purpose in a person attending a debate unless they were willing to hear the arguments. A closed mind is unreachable. There are, however, millions, of all ages, who are not close minded. A target rich environment, if you will.
The previous reference by Classof52 to concerns that Christian groups are presenting their beliefs in our schools validates the need for debate. Unlike Classof52, my concerns are based on his insistence and obvious bias that the material presented to our youth should be one-sided. This one-sided stance implies a complete lack of trust in the judgment of those young people. He is unwilling to present both sides and let the individual make up their own mind. This is not an American concept and is rooted in Totalitarianism. The right to choose is fundamental. Presenting only one side of an issue is nothing more than indoctrination.
Kind of scary, isn’t it?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 6:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
one.voice, you are more optimistic than I am about people’s willingness to be open minded on this particular issue.
I am one example. I believe evolution is what should be taught in public schools and my mind won’t be changed on this. The other “side” is religious and as such doesn’t belong in public schools. I am unbending on this. It scares me that others want to inject religion over science into the public school curriculum, and I am just happy that their strongest attempts so far have failed.
I regret that my unmoving stance is viewed as indoctrination or frightens other people, but I am just as frightened by them.
Still just as I know my mind won’t be changed (by any mortal anyway), I also know the fundamentalist religious take on this won’t be changed either.
That’s why I still say, this debate would be pointless.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 7:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger,
Then, by your own admission, a debate for you would be pointless. On the other hand, I doubt that you would want to deny others not so inclined the information that could be gleaned from such a debate. Rather than argue against a debate, your proper course of action would be to exercise your choice not to attend. In that way, you could be assured that no one would attempt to force their ideas and beliefs on you. It is clear to me that you personally do not wish to force your ideas on others. However, by denying others the information or by an arbitrary decision and pronouncement that the information on one side should be given great weight, while the information on the other side should be given little or no weight, is simply a public demonstration of bias. This last sentence is not directed at you personally. It is a simple recognition of opinions expressed by those advocating for school curriculum of the scientific approach only. Since both sides of this issue are founded upon faith based beliefs (there is no demonstrable or repeatable scientific explanation for the origin of life) the simple solution and I believe the only equitable solution is to present the information, from both sides, equally, and let the individual decide. Under these circumstances, I believe that the best forum to present this information would be in a public, face to face debate. This allows choice, while at the same time allows each side to give their information the weight that they believe it deserves. Who could possibly object to that, except someone in favor of indoctrination?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 7:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I want to debate for a very simple reason. To demonstrate that the creationist position lacks any substance. There is a perception today that science is decided by majority vote. The whole “teach the controversy” idea is just that. It aim is to create the perception of a controversy where none exists in order to inject religious views into science class. There is no controversy in biology about whether evolution happens. None. The controversy is over the importance of the various mechanisms by which evolution works. Evolution as a fact has been established to a greater degree than gravity. We understand more about evolution than we do about gravity.
Creationism has almost no positive arguments in its favor, and the ones that do exist depend on ignoring large amounts of contrary information. The majority of creationist arguments consist of attacks on evolution, as if disproving evolution will somehow prove creationism by default. It doesn’t work that way, but there is a growing movement that thinks so.
I want to debate because I feel it’s important to show that creationism , whether you call it ID or any other pseudonym, is based purely on religion in no way can be considered science. I want to debate, not because I think I will convince the opponent, but because of the people watching or reading, who may be undecided, but when they see how shallow and without merit creationism is, may become interested in science. I want to debate because creationism is a threat to the future of this country.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 8:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott
I applaud your acceptance of the debate. And now back to the subject at hand. The forum for that debate. Earlier you stated that presenting documents to the audience in an oral forum was not practical, however, the technology is present at the City Auditorium in the form of overhead screens where the audience can read your documents as you present them. You also mentioned the time factor. I am sure this point would be negotiable. and I believe these details can be worked out with your challenger. I think the media coverage of such an event would bring this question to the forefront at the very time when our City Council has been asked to make a decision on the issue. And in that way serve to enlighten the public as to the rightness or wrongness of their decision. Do you concur?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 8:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One voice: “Since both sides of this issue are founded upon faith based beliefs (there is no demonstrable or repeatable scientific explanation for the origin of life)”
Once again we see this truly uninformed statement. To reiterate for the umpteenth time: evolution is not about the origin of life. That is a totally separate subject. Why cannot you folks understand that simple little truism? No scientist accepts any of the various possibilities of the origin of life as anything more than speculation. There is no faith based belief among scientists. That is all on the side of those who by faith believe a supernatural being created life.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 8:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually “debating the debate” IS the subject at hand, according to the original letter.
And I appreciate getting thoughtful responses from one.oice, Scott, and Class. Thank you all!
one.voice, I do not agree that my positon is “bias” but I know you think so and I’m not gonna go back and forth about it.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 8:54 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger “However as of this writing no peer reviewed journal of science has published one iota of their religious crap.”
Being “right” doesn’t mean one has to be rude, does it? No wonder so many religious fundamentalists are upset with we “non-believers”; because some of us can’t resist the urge to be insulting.”
Insulting? Are you perhaps concluding that I called religion crap? I did not. Read carefully. What I called crap are the faith based arguments for Creationism that those folks attempt to call science and try (unsuccessfully) to get into scientific journals. That material is truly crap.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
one.voice,
How long do you think it will take the average member of the audience to go through a technical paper projected on the overhead screen? I see where you’re coming from, but based on my experience, evolution is too technical a subject to be able to convey properly in a hour or two. People literally spend lifetimes learning the subject in order to understand it.
Now, I’m not saying that the average person CAN’T understand it, but it is likely going to take longer than an oral debate allows for. An internet debate allows people to read at their own pace, looking at supplied hyperlinked information, and has the additional advantage of being available for much longer, allowing a much larger audience to benefit.
I agree that it is a fairly pertinent issue right now and I’m all for it, but it is literally a ten-to-one time difference between the creationist stating a “flaw” in evolution and the evolutionist explaining why that flaw doesn’t really exist. I doubt a creationist would be willing to concede that kind of time difference.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OneVoice: “Unlike Classof52, my concerns are based on his insistence and obvious bias that the material presented to our youth should be one-sided. This one-sided stance implies a complete lack of trust in the judgment of those young people. He is unwilling to present both sides and let the individual make up their own mind.”
But your argument is based on a faulty premise: that there are two sides. There are not. One is science and the other is religion. They occupy different spheres of human thought. The religious folks bring no scientific arguments to bear on the subject. And the scientists have nothing to say about religion. You might have a reasonable debate between two religionists, one arguing that God created all life intact as we see it today and the other taking the position that God chose to work through natural laws, one of these being evolution. That would be a theological debate with both sides speaking the same language. You could also have a reasonable debate between two scientific schools of thought about the relative importance of punctuated equilibrium in evolution. Once again the two sides would have a common frame of reference with agreement as to what the rules of evidence imply.
You cannot, however, have a debate between people who base all conclusions on factual, repeatable evidence and others who rely soley on faith and believe the Bible to be a source book of science information. The two sides have no common frame of reference, no basic ground rules and no possibility of a cogent debate between them. That is why I believe Scott to be foolish to entertain the idea of a debate. Those on the other side will not accept anything he says which relies on evidence because they do not accept evidence in the scientific sense. This is why WLJ keeps referring to idea of evolution as a religion; he does not know the meaning of evidence.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class of 52,
Do you honestly believe that is the first time I have heard the question/issue from you? No. I am well aware of your definition of the issue and you are well aware of my definition of the issue. You have stated your position clearly and I have stated mine. At the moment, we were discussing the forum for an oral, public debate between Scott and his challenger. I think it would be a good idea for you to discuss your views on the issue with Scott. That may be invaluable in the debate. Perhaps you could negotiate a place as a participant in those debates. But at the moment, Scott has accepted the challenge and I presume he and his challengers will work out the parameters involved. What questions would be acceptable in the issue, etc. I plan to attend a public, oral debate, and I am sure that your question will be one of the issues. My own personal belief is that the issue of evolution verses intelligent design or creator, if you will, is joined at the hip with the issue of invocation. And I also believe that a review of the posts on both issues will make this abundantly clear. I am very interested in hearing the arguments, and will reserve my opinions and beliefs pending the outcome of the debate. Who knows, I may end up agreeing with you.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Round and round we go. But, let us attempt to explain it one more time. In order to even consider “intelligent design”, one must first prove that there is some external being with some “intelligence” that is capable of “designing.” That cannot cannot be assumed. To do so would be the same as creating something out of one’s imagination. If some person can prove that there is such a being even that would not be enough to proceed. What would next be required would be to define such a “being”; i.e. know all of its attributes. That still is not enough. One would have to know and understand not only what and how it thinks, but also its motivation. Anyone laying claim that they are able to “know” this have to be afflicted with a serious case of arrogance as we cannot even determine it in man.
Now, Ms. Yaeger’s letter might be “cute.” But here we are not dealing with “cute” and therefore if a debate is to ensue, let it be by those who understand the seriousness of the central question posed, if any intelligent one can be upon this subject. Ms. Yaeger, and those who wish to “argue”, a debate is not possible on the question posed, that is up to them. However, let us admit that Ms. Yaeger herself does not appreciate or understand the basic rules of logic, and makes some very serious errors in that regard from the beginning. She, and others do need to realize that “ingelligent design” is not a starting point, and has no validity unless all required antecedents are identified, established, and/or agreed upon.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quoting Classof52:
“Insulting? Are you perhaps concluding that I called religion crap? I did not. Read carefully. What I called crap are the faith based arguments for Creationism that those folks attempt to call science and try (unsuccessfully) to get into scientific journals. That material is truly crap.”
Yes you are right I came to the wrong conclusion and I am glad you clarified.
Again quoting Classof52:
But your argument is based on a faulty premise: that there are two sides. There are not. One is science and the other is religion. They occupy different spheres of human thought.
EXACTLY!
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “She, and others do need to realize that “ingelligent design” is not a starting point, and has no validity unless all required antecedents are identified, established, and/or agreed upon.”
Of course! But yours is a rational argument and those who accept ideas on the basis of faith alone do not deal in the rational. Indeed they ignore it, even despise it as leading young people away from the teachings of their parents.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Someone very wise once said,”You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t use reason to get into.”
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rlaitres,
It would appear that everyone is getting into the act. Since the beginning, it has been one roadblock after another. What is wrong with having an oral, public debate and let the chips fall where they may. Come on, Gentlemen, drop all the preconditions. Who wouldn’t enjoy a Lincoln/Douglas type debate? Just let it all hang out. Whatever people conclude, it’s not the end of the world. This is just the kind of debate that has been missing from our society for a long time. Such a debate would be high drama. Tell me you wouldn’t enjoy seeing the apathetic masses get their blood pressure up?
Get with Scott, hash this thing over and come out with a strong presentation. Allow the other side to do the same, and let the people decide what they want to believe. The entertainment value alone would be priceless. Maybe we could put on the first segment free and then charge a higher price for each successive segment. Reminds me of the kid on Tu Do Street in what is now known as Ho Chi Minh City that followed me around offering a shoe shine for a dime. Did a beautiful job on my left shoe, but it cost me a buck and a half to get the other one shined. I often think back on that kid and wonder how he is doing in a Communist Regime. I think he is probably doing OK, though.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One voice: “and you are well aware of my definition of the issue. You have stated your position clearly and I have stated mine.”
Actually, I am not aware of your position on or definition of the issue. And I am not certain just which issue you refer to. I know you are in favor of a debate but I have no idea what your position is on the matter itself. Do you identify with the camp of the Creationists? Do you require evidence for your assumptions or do you take everything in this world as a matter of faith? Do you have any background in science? Are you a member of a fundamentalist church? Knowing the answers to these questions might help us to establish your position on various issues.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
one.voice,
i just don’t see it happening as an oral debate. There is just too much information to present. Evolution, unfortunately, is not simple.
One of the strongest evidences for evolution is the consiliance. There isn’t just one or two pieces of evidence or lines of reasoning that are convincing. It’s how the whole thing hangs together. Anatomy, biology, genetics, fossils, geology, paleontology, anthropology, they are all part of it. Most people don’t know the difference between a gene and DNA. Imagine trying to explain all that in a ten-minute rebuttal. I don’t think there is a Power Point presentation in the world that can give a solid understanding of everything that is necessary.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
one.voice — by your last post you admit that such a “debate” would be a public spectacle full of drama and high tempers on each side.
Do you really see that as being a good thing for our community?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
The amount of time necessary to make your point is directly related to your skill level. I don’t pretend to be an expert in any of this. But you sound like you know what you are talking about to me. There are several flaws in an Internet debate, also. The first is there is no moderator, as you well know to keep everyone on subject, and by necessity the forum would be open to the public, which means the debate would be open to totally off the wall remarks by John Q. Public. Another issue in the Internet debate is that the public is expected to grasp your meaning in spite of grammatical, spelling and typo errors. There are no visual clues as to what was meant nor what words were emphasized. And besides that, it wouldn’t be half as much fun.
I really thought we had something interesting going. If we don’t, will somebody please post the words “forget about it.” And I can go back to playing cards with my keeper of the list, computer. Most of you know that I don’t have a lot to say on these posts, and I have no problem sticking with my little information posts. I just really felt that I was beginning to know you, but then how well can you know a person just by reading their file? It would be like an online debate.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
One.voice.
It can’t happen because scott can’t present gibberish in person.
Now scott, about all that “hard evidence” you were going to present?
Do you not have the ‘hard evidence’ and you plan on requiring us to accept it on blind faith?
Like I keep telling you scott, evolution is faith based, and nothing less than a religion.
You have spent more than enough time telling us how brilliant you are, yet you offer no ‘hard evidence’ either of evolution or your personal intelligence.
Any other person that desires to log on and partake of the opportunity offer by The Daily Sentinel has to put up with being harassed with your own personal views, and any person that disagrees with you is promptly labeled as stupid, ignorant, uninformed, or whatever your pet label of the day is.
The atheists cried and whined about a few minutes of prayer, but that is nothing compared to the crap that everybody else has to put up with to enjoy this forum.
Evolution is YOUR religion, stop shoving it down everybody else’s throat.
Now, go clean the spittle off your monitor.
Unless you actually do have ‘hard evidence’ to prove your position.
But if that were the case you would be willing to present it in a public forum for all to see.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 9:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This debate is silly. Everyone knows that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the known universe to be His Grand Pasta Bowl. I believe our Childrens should be allowed to stand passively while a prayer is read each morning in the schools to the GSM and His saucy benevolence.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:05 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott and entourage,
I presume that the answer is forget about it. I don’t believe that I have ever personally witnessed a worse case of backsliding, but you have got one thing working for you. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, You can most certainly baffle them with Bull S_ _ _.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Just because you don’t understand doesn’t mean it’s gibberish. Other people seem to understand quite well.
And please cite one post where I said anything about my brilliance or anyone else’s lack thereof. I may have said someone (probably you) were ignorant on a specific subject, but I never said anyone was stupid or anything else. I challenge you to prove me wrong.
What would you consider “hard evidence” of evolution? Just out of curiosity.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Who’s backslid? My position has always been that an oral debate is not suited to this subject. I have explained my reasoning in great detail. It has been almost totally ignored and those on the other side have crowed about how no one is willing to debate them. I am more than willing to debate in a written format and have said so repeatedly. How is that backsliding?
The only backsliding I see is the creationists retreating from the challenge that has been posed to them - probably because the know they can’t win on a level playing field.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just nothing quite like a little condescension is there?
From Bob from Delta:
” Now, Ms. Yaeger’s letter might be “cute.” But here we are not dealing with “cute” and therefore if a debate is to ensue, let it be by those who understand the seriousness of the central question posed, if any intelligent one can be upon this subject. Ms. Yaeger, and those who wish to “argue”, a debate is not possible on the question posed, that is up to them. However, let us admit that Ms. Yaeger herself does not appreciate or understand the basic rules of logic, and makes some very serious errors in that regard from the beginning. She, and others do need to realize that “ingelligent design” is not a starting point, and has no validity unless all required antecedents are identified, established, and/or agreed upon. ”
Miss Yeagers letter is not “cute”, nor is her name spelled incorrectly in the original post.
I am not willing to admit that you know the level of Miss Yeagers appreciation, or understanding of” the basic rules of logic, and makes some very serious errors in that regard from the beginning.”
I am more inclined to believe that mr laitres is an insolent pompous, bombastic buffoon of the highest order to make such assumptions about someone he has never met, talked to, or had any interpersonal dealings with.
But, hey, that’s just little bobbie from Delta.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
From the lack of response, I think onevoice is working on your file right now with a sharpie. But he nailed it. You are slip-slidin’ away and the closer the debate, the more you are slip-slidin’ away.
You are slicker than snot on a glass door knob.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” What would you consider “hard evidence” of evolution? Just out of curiosity. ‘
Well gee whiz scottie, I would accept any type of ‘hard evidence’ that provides real proof of any part of the issue at hand.
that would be something you have a great deal of knowledge on from our previous discussions.
The complete lineage of Giraffes from the shortnecked Giraffe, through to the current version of Giraffe.
The exact reasons why all the intermediate species died off leaving the Okapi(not a Giraffe) and the current version with nothing in between.
Any sudden climate change would have killed equally with disregard to height.
Earthquakes, floods, fires, meteors, etc would not have only wiped out the mid height forages, but would have destroyed all levels, and then only in local areas.
Same thing I keep asking for, and you keep forgetting, goalpost shifting, dodging the issue, hiding from the questions, avoiding any opportunities to provide answers.
And now, you have so many excuses to not debate a high school girl that it’s literally unbelievable.
I think you’re not able to perform because you know your beliefs is just that, beliefs with no actual proof.
Just what you were told to believe, so you did, no proof needed to convince you.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Giraffe ancestry, by epoch:
Holocene: Giraffa camelopardalis (the modern giraffe), Okapia johnstoni (the modern okapi)
Pleistocene: Giraffa camelopardalis, Giraffa jumae, Giraffa gracilis, Giraffa sivalensis, Okapia stillei, Sivatherium giganteum, Sivatherium maurusium [4]
Pliocene: Giraffa attica, Giraffa punjabiensis, Giraffa priscilla, Samotherium boissieri, Samotherium sp. , Honanotherium sp. , Samotherium mongoliensis, Helladotherium sp. [5] , Bramatherium perimense [6]
Upper Miocene Samotherium africanum, Samotherium sp. [7], Palaeotragus germaini, Honanotherium sp. [8], Honanotherium schlosseri, Honanotherium sivalense, Birgerbohlina schaubi [9], Giraffokeryx punjabiensis, Bramatherium megacephalum, Shansitherium fuguensis, Shansitherium tateli [10], Palaeotragus primaevus [11], Progiraffa exigua
Middle Miocene: Palaeotragus primaevus, Giraffokeryx sp., Giraffokeryx tungurensis, Giraffokeryx punjabiensis [12]
Lower Miocene: Prolibytherium magnieri [13], Climacoceras africanus [14], Climacoceras gentryi, Canthumeryx sertensis
Oligocene: Eumeryx sp.
Does that do anything for you?
And of course, as was explained before, there is no possible way we can know exactly what killed them off. We don’t need to know. We know they existed from the fossils they left behind, and analysis of those fossils tells us the relationship. Evolution does not depend on knowing exactly what killed off each species, contrary to your repeated assertion.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Have you completely missed the half-dozen or so times I have accepted the debate with Ms. Yeager?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
american patriot,
What else can I do? I have agreed to a debate. I have explained my reasons for not doing an oral debate. My offers to a written debate have been ignored. I have not changed my position in the slightest, and yet I am being accused of back-sliding and “slip-slidin.”
Can anyone explain how exactly I am back-sliding? Or is it just because I am demanding a level playing field?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
What you are demanding is not a level playing field. What you are dictating is the forum, the rules of engagement, the parameters of the issue, the time frame and what may be presented by opposition. Well, beam me up Scottie, my dog could win that debate.
But I did like that snot on a glass doorknob from AP. That one’s going in the file. He does come up with some good stuff, even if he does lean toward ranting on occasion.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 10:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So it’s okay for the other side to dictate the forum, but I can’t have a say in it. It’s their way or else.
Gotcha.
And where did I dictate any rules, parameters, time frame or what the opposition presents? What post was that? Why would a written debate be any less advantageous to the creationist position?
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 11:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I thought the arguments made above by several people were very strong for an oral, public debate. It sounds very interesting, and I would love to see it. Maybe we could get the city to let you use Two Rivers Convention Center or City Hall, because I am sure the crowd would be huge, maybe not for the first one, but definitely for the ones to follow. Maybe it would even go national.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 11:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK Johnson. Scott presented you with the probable lineage through the ages of the giraffe based on the fossil record. We convict people of murder based on less hard evidence than that.
Now let’s hear the evidence for your view that it happened in a different way. Time to reciprocate! Time to put up or shut up, laddie! Of course I must remember that in all of these delightful conversations going back for some time, you have never, I repeat NEVER, presented one scintilla of evidence for your point or view. You have simply asked repeatedly for evidence for evolution and repeatedly ignored it when presented (or changed the topic). You are a slippery old codger, indeed WLJ-but it’s no substitute for facts. Now wipe off the diesel oil and give us some hard evidence!
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 11:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “Can anyone explain how exactly I am back-sliding? Or is it just because I am demanding a level playing field?”
This has been your position right from the start, Scott, as those of us who are able to read the English language can attest. Some others apparently only hear what they want to hear in such communications.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 11:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix,
It won’t be me in an oral debate. I’m not that good at public speaking (not as good as I want to be, anyway) and I have never seen or read a transcript of an oral debate on this issue that did justice to the pro-evolution side. There is just too much information to present and not enough time. This is why the anti-evolutionists prefer oral debates - they can make evolution look like it can’t satisfactorily answer the questions.
It can, it just takes more time than is generally available. This is why I say it’s not a level playing field.
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 11:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Grandmasix:”I thought the arguments made above by several people were very strong for an oral, public debate. It sounds very interesting, and I would love to see it. Maybe we could get the city to let you use Two Rivers Convention Center or City Hall, because I am sure the crowd would be huge, maybe not for the first one, but definitely for the ones to follow. Maybe it would even go national.
GM6, you are apparently unaware that a national debate on this topic was held recently in Dover PA in front of a Christian judge. He absolutely demolished the arguments of the Intelligent Design crowd and chastized the religious group severely for dishonesty in his written judgement (rather ironic, don’t you think?) The debate is over. Intelligent design is neither intelligent nor a science. The judge already ruled in favor of the pro-science group. No point in having a repeat in this locality inasmuch as the ID people have no new arguments-only the tired old faith based conclusions.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 6:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
A nationally televised special. Great. Now even my distant relatives will know I live in Freakland.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 7:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Exactly what time constraints were placed on you? Several people above said something about more than one segment or debate. I have been reading your arguments, and I can understand them.
Class, Do you think only one person in the whole US has anything different to argue from either side, or are you just afraid of the debate?
Ashhugger, If you think it is so bad here and we are all freaks, why do you live here?
I know some of you are are teachers, and you are still don’t think you can make your point?
American Patriot was right, what we are dealing with here is the “little blue acorn theory. The wimp factor.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 7:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Grandmasix,
You are wasting your time. But at least you have proof that the weasel is not an endangered species. Remember these are the same people who have been touting their Ivy League educations for months. These are the same folks that have been calling you stupid, and asking you how you dare to comment after they have deemed you ignorant on the subject. Their grasp is greatly exceeded by their reach. We have enjoyed weeks of them patting each other on the back. What you just witnessed was liberalism 101. Symbolism, without substance. Just bring on a high school girl and watch them scatter like a covey of quail. Now we can all sit back, put our feet up and watch them scramble to change the subject. Their biggest insult is that after all of this, they still expect people to take them seriously. Tell me Grandmasix, as a woman, how do you feel about their performance so far?
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 7:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Grandmasix,
Sorry, the time constraints I was referring to were those placed by the oral format itself. Usually, an oral debate allows each side equal time to talk. Unless the creationist is willing to allow the evolutionist five or ten minutes to talk for every one minute he gets, there is simply no way that the evolutionist can counter all of the creationist claims. Creationism is simple, evolution is complicated, and there is simply no way that both can be explained equally in the same amount of time.
I think you underestimate the scope of the data to be presented. I appreciate that you can understand my arguments. I really try to make them understandable, but debates aren’t just for explanations. They are also for supporting your position. As an example, let’s say that evolution is defined as a change in the frequency of the alleles in a population. If I write that here, someone reading it can go look up what an allele is. I can even include a link to a site that does just that. In an oral format, I would have to take the time to explain what an allele is in order for the audience to understand the point. In the oral format, the evolutionists has the additional burden of explaining unfamiliar terms to the audience that the creationist doesn’t have.
I have repeatedly offered to debate in a written format. Why has that offer been consistently ignored? You are calling me a wimp for not accepting the debate, when I have done just that. No one has explained why I am backsliding, or slip-sliding, or a wimp for offering an alternate debate format. It just gets ignored.
Perhaps this is another reason why evolutionists won’t debate. The creationists can’t seem to discuss parameters honestly.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 8:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: Most of the folks who argue the creationists point of view on these forums have never had a single college or university course on evolution in their whole life. Nor have they bothered to study the subject independently. Their information comes from religious tracts presented in extremely simplistic terms. Their knowledge about the subject is, like the Platte River, a mile wide and about an inch deep. (WLJ for example wrote about “dominate” traits such as brown eyes!).
Those of us who are professionals in one of the biological sciences take a substantial number of undergraduate and graduate courses whose subject is either primarily the principles of evolution or where evolution is the dominant underlying theme. In my case the number exceeded a dozen semester long courses. In addition I have taught the subject at the university level for many years and have studied and read scientific papers and books on evolution for most of my 50 years as a professional. (and I am still learning the complexities of this subject)
These folks are unrealistic in the extreme for expecting anyone to present a case for evolution during the course of a debate lasting an hour or two. You may as well expect to learn something about nuclear physics from Reader’s Digest or advanced calculus from a discussion with your pastor.
Entrapping scientists into public debates on this subject is a strategy which is widely pushed among the ID crowd (as I noted in one of their tracts about a year ago). They recognize that it is easy to appeal emotionally to the general public with their moronic ideas and much more difficult for the scientist to summarize complex data. You are seeing folks here who have been urged by their religious tracts to pursue this avenue. I am glad to see that you are not going to fall for it.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 8:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52,
I have nowhere near your level of experience or expertise, but I have been following the Evolution vs. Creation issue for a number of years now, and I agree. I have read the transcripts of quite a few oral debates, and they almost invariably come out as appearing to be a victory for the creationists - not because of any deficiency on the part of the evolutionist, but simply because he didn’t have the time to refute all the creationist’s points. It’s just not fair to expect such a technical subject be adequately explained in such a short time.
The goads and insults are also, unfortunately, quite typical for creationists attempting to entrap evolutionists into such a debate. I’ve been involved with this subject way too long to take them seriously.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 8:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, I understand, Scott, this is all just too complicated for us lay people. However with your superior education you were able to grasp the concept. Your self imposed time constraints disallow a presentation that would be understandable by the public. And besides all that you are just not a good public speaker. I understand, all right, if you are not assured of victory, you are going to pull up your pants and go home. There’s a lay term for that. Gutless. If you can write it so we can understand, you can speak it so we can understand.
But just so you understand, you just relinquished any moral authority that you had. You are in chapter 13 of the intellectual bankruptcy process. You are not looking for a level playing field, you are looking for a way off the playing field. What we are all witness to should, in the future, be referred to as the great egress.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 8:35 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “The goads and insults are also, unfortunately, quite typical for creationists”
As if to underscore your point here is that wonderful Christian woman, Grandma6 calling you gutless, and intellectually bankrupt. I had a hearty laugh at the moral hypocrisy exhibited here.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 8:41 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52:
Grandmasix,
If you had actually read what I wrote in post 60, you would note that I said quite plainly that it is NOT too complicated for lay people, just that it will take longer than an oral debate to explain it properly.
Perhaps you can explain why the creationists here are completely ignoring my counter-proposal for a written debate. Unless of course, you are going to ignore it, too.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 8:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix, I love it here and I love the people here. There are freak fringes who amuse me more than anything; my only point was holding this sham of a debate and putting it in the public limelight would make us all look like idiots.
I ask you you specifically: As a person of faith what value do you see in trying to convince people to believe as you do? Isn’t your faith enough for you? Or do you have some need to bring other people over to “your side”?
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 8:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
class of 52,
Your paranoia is showing, in your pronouncement that we are all co-conspirators in a vast right wing, religious conspiracy. We all received a secret memo from the Pope, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. We are setting traps for you and your cohorts. Can you even imagine how crazy that sounds? You are probably scanning the skies for the mother ship. Try wrapping your ankles in tin foil. That may help block the evil rays beamed at you by the great unwashed. I can only imagine how desperate and frightened you would become if the debate challenge had come from an adult. Chew on this, I don’t care if you ever debate. The fact that you won’t has pretty well established that you can’t. And try to understand, your refusal has already made my point. We are already into the aftermath stage, so clean off your computer screen, walk it off and try to recover a bit of dignity. You are so busted.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 8:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
american_patriot — As if. (With eye roll.)
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 9:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
To all of the above who have, without proof or facts categorized me,
First, I never took one side or the other.
Second, I think a debate is always informative, and I think all sides usually benefit from an oral, public debate.
Third, I don’t think the people here would look like idiots if a debate was held.
Fourth, NO TIME CONTRAINTS WERE PLACED ON THE DEBATE. If it took ten or twelve or fifteen two hour debates, I think people would be interested. Fifth, It takes longer to write something down than it does to say it. Otherwise, there would be no need for the court recorder to use a “shorthand” to record the proceedings.
Sixth, if your argument is so compelling and so one sided, then why are you so afraid to engage in an oral, public debate to clarify your position. If you are not interested in a debate and the public cannot understand your points, then why are there over 100 posts on this thread alone? An organized oral, public debate is preferred over an Internet free for all where no one can see or hear the tone of the voice, the inflections and the sincerity of the argument.
Your refusal to engage in an oral, public debate has been noted, and the damage control is not working.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 9:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Looking at many of the posts of those who believe in “intelligent design” or “creationism”, it is obvious that most (if not all) have never bothered to respond to the central challenge which they face, and which must be addressed. It is: Prove to me that “god” does exist.
Probably the longest conversation I have ever had upon this subject, I had with three(2) seminarians of a fundamentalist christian sect. The challenge was: Close your bible and prove to me that there is a “god.” Needless to say, it was an impossibility. Their response in every instance was always the same. They opened their “bible” and pointed to passage after passage, totally ignoring the first part of the challenge “Close your bible and prove..”
Such individuals, and we see many on this board, are afflicted with the same thing. Being so indoctrinated into the absolute “belief” that a “god” does exist, their reaction, when questioned is purely emotional. And, when that is challenged, they look upon it as an isult as a personal assault. Such individuals, if they had been raised and taught Mein Kampf or Das Kapital would believe that as strongly as they do their bible. And, even today, if we were to convince them that either of those were true, they would be the most zealous followers of either of them.
The NAZI party, masters of propaganda, were quite aware of this charactistics in some minds. Hitler or Goebbels knew that the most zealous followers of fascism were those who were previously zealous communist, those most avid of followers did not come from those who were tepid in accepting any ideology, but from the ranks of those who had to believe totally and unquestioningly in one, no matter what it was.
Such individuals care not what the ideology is, it is the absoluteness and totality of it in their minds that is most important. It is the emotional satisfaction and security they get from “believing” so totally that they are after.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 9:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“First, I never took one side or the other.”
Noted.
“Second, I think a debate is always informative, and I think all sides usually benefit from an oral, public debate.”
Have you ever seen or read an oral debate on this subject?
“Third, I don’t think the people here would look like idiots if a debate was held.”
Why not? People here call us idiots just for disagreeing with them. How does someone look who does not respond to all of his opponents points?
“Fourth, NO TIME CONTRAINTS WERE PLACED ON THE DEBATE. If it took ten or twelve or fifteen two hour debates, I think people would be interested.”
I never said anyone placed time constraints on the debate. They are inherent to that particular forum. And I think you overestimate people’s interest. I don’t know that I would want to attend fifteen two hour debates on the same subject.
“Fifth, It takes longer to write something down than it does to say it. Otherwise, there would be no need for the court recorder to use a “shorthand” to record the proceedings.”
But there is no time limit on how long it takes people to read it, once it is posted it is available for much longer, and links to additional information can be included. It is much easier to present technical information in this manner. This applies to both sides, but for some reason the creationists have completely ignored this option.
“Sixth, if your argument is so compelling and so one sided, then why are you so afraid to engage in an oral, public debate to clarify your position.”
Because it cannot be clarified orally unless the audience is already technically proficient in the subject. Having to provide that proficiency to the audience places an additional, unfair burden on the evolutionist.
“If you are not interested in a debate and the public cannot understand your points, then why are there over 100 posts on this thread alone?”
Because this thread has been primarily proposing parameters and insulting those of us who are not willing to engage with the aforementioned unfair burden. It has not been debating the issue.
“An organized oral, public debate is preferred over an Internet free for all where no one can see or hear the tone of the voice, the inflections and the sincerity of the argument.”
None of which have anything to do with the technical information required to be presented. They do, however, help the creationist in his emotional appeals to the audience. Kent Hovind is a fantastic public speaker. He is funny and presents his information in a simple, entertaining manner. He is completely wrong on almost every subject he speaks on, but he is fun to listen to.
“Your refusal to engage in an oral, public debate has been noted, and the damage control is not working.”
As has the creationists complete failure to acknowledge the alternate debate proposal, explain why this venue is not acceptable, or to specify where I have “backslid.”
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 9:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Rlaitres,
People, people, people, step right up and enjoy the dog and pony show. Welcome my friends to the show that never ends. We’re so glad you could attend, come inside, come inside.
Now we have been labeled as the vast right-wing, religious, conspiracy, Nazis, with inferior mentalities, who have been indoctrinated, and all this just because we don’t believe that withholding information/withholding choice is the right thing to do. Demonetization in place of debate. The best thing for you to do is take a couple of deep breaths, step back and look at what you are doing. Is this really the way you want to be seen?
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 9:55 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No american_patriot, obviously we want to be seen as godless cowards who are afraid of little girls, as the evolutionists have been called from the start of this whole thing.
Enough, already.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 9:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP’s reply is but an example of one who considers disagreement with position as a personal assault. Had the gentleman bothered to read my previous post, he would have noticed that there was no assault whatever, it consisted merely of raising a basic fact of pssychology. Yet, he took that, and instead of addressing it directly, went off on a tangent to create what he “believes” it meant. Unfortunately, that denotes and emotional reaction, not an intellectual and logical one.
It would seem that an individual even making a pretense of logical thinking might look at my post and ask the question “Is this true of me.” AP did not do that. That constitutes the very essence of a reactionary; i.e. unthinking response. While such may be appropriate from a cat when one steps on its tail, it is certainly not apropos for a supposedly manture, logical and thinking individual, one who wishes to be taken at all seriously in his positions.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
If we should “teach the controversy,” then why stop at evolution?
Let’s discuss the merits of a flat vs. round earth, geocentricism vs. heliocentricism, demon possession vs. germ theory, alchemy vs. chemistry, invisible-leprechauns-that-push-us-down vs. gravity, etc.
Let’s present all of these and let people decide for themselves. These are all viable options, right?
Never mind that half of those options were disproven long ago. Never mind that intelligent design suffers from fatal flaws of logic. Never mind that intelligent design/creationism offers no testable predictions. Never mind that evolution has withstood every test for the last century and a half.
If we’re going to teach the controversy, lets teach all of them.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:13 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL,
I am quite certain that you meant to write ” mature ” in your last post. However, on reflection, “manure” might be more appropriate for the stuff coming from WLJ and co. I admire Scotts’ tenacity, but question whether he fully understands the futility of trying to argue with those who reject science across the board, unless it supports the assumptions upon which they base their view of the world.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
grandmasix — I am sorry I had the nerve to presume you were a person of faith in the absence of any hard proof. From previous posts in previous threads I thought it was a fair assumption. I never dreamed it would offend you.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Additionally, it is not fair to assume that all Christians reject evolution. I know very well that this is not true.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc,
Oh, yes. I understand. I have no illusions about convincing Willis or any other poster. It might happen, but that’s not why I do it.
There are people reading this forum who do not post. It is for them that I respond to Willis and the others. Regardless of whether evolution is correct or not, I don’t want to let inaccuracies about it stand unchallenged. People should be able to decide whether or not to accept evolution on its own merits, not the cartoon version Willis keeps dredging up.
I also like the irony in the behavior these “Christian” posters display while accusing me of being gutless, backsliding, intellectually bankrupt and so on. They do more harm to their own cause than I ever could.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:23 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are right, Ashhugger. I am a Christian who believes that evolution is a real process. I see no contradiction.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well Scott,
Keep up the good fight, then. I agree with your position and I respect your willingness to persist in the face of this howling wind of asininity.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:32 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
You guys just go ahead and talk amongst yourselves. I don’t think there is any way anyone could improve on the image you are creating. I believe in personal choice, I will just let the public decide. Do you guys have uniforms?
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 11:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow, Scott. Your patience and tenacity are surely that of legend. Unfortunately, the ability of some of these theists to utterly disregard every sane and logical thing you have said will be your Achilles Heel. The truly sad thing is that the so-called debate has been won by evolution time and again, in multiple forums. For the theists’ side however, these debates serve only as “revival meetings,” strengthening their ability to reject any and all evidence refuting their tenuous position.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 12:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
toaaronuu-AMEN (in a secular humanist sense, of course)
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 12:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From post #86…
(honest folks, I’m not making this up)
” Classof52
Posted May 30th, 2008 at 11:04 pm PM This User Report this comment
OK Johnson. Scott presented you with the probable lineage through the ages of the giraffe based on the fossil record. ”
PROBABLE?, as in MAYBE?. as in “WELL, IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED”?, as in ” OUR BEST GUESS?”
Well, to a worshipper of the god of evolution, it’s like the word of god.
So much for the ‘hard evidence’.
But typical of the BBB crowd.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 1:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Post #93
” Perhaps this is another reason why evolutionists won’t debate. The creationists can’t seem to discuss parameters honestly. ”
scott, it’s not the ‘creationists’ with the credibility problem.
How come yoour ‘hard evidence’ came down to a ‘best guess’ that requires a leap of faith?
It’s a religion.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 1:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Post #94
From the General of the BBB.
” Those of us who are professionals in one of the biological sciences take a substantial number of undergraduate and graduate courses whose subject is either primarily the principles of evolution or where evolution is the dominant underlying theme. In my case the number exceeded a dozen semester long courses. In addition I have taught the subject at the university level for many years and have studied and read scientific papers and books on evolution for most of my 50 years as a professional. (and I am still learning the complexities of this subject) ”
A short version is,
‘I have been through many indoctrination courses in my life, and I’m so slow that I still can’t catch on to the whole idea’.
iand anybody that doesn’t drink my koolaid and take my word is stupid and uneducated’.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 1:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Post #95
” The goads and insults are also, unfortunately, quite typical for creationists attempting to entrap evolutionists into such a debate. I’ve been involved with this subject way too long to take them seriously. ”
So, you can’t accept the ‘oral debate’ because you would feel entrapped by being placed into a position of either proving your position, or being made to look incredibly ignorant by a high school girl?
Ok, I accept that excuse.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 1:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Post #99.
” ashhugger
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 8:45 am PM This User Report this comment
grandmasix, I love it here and I love the people here. There are freak fringes who amuse me more than anything; my only point was holding this sham of a debate and putting it in the public limelight would make us all look like idiots. ”
The ’sham’ of a debate?
How so?
I do agree, that any public debate on this subject, the evolutionist side will look like “idiots.”
But, that ‘public limelight’ must be avoided at all costs. Sorta like hiding from the light of day by lurking in the shadows from fear that others will see the truth you are trying to hide?
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 1:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Post #103
(from the spokesman of the BBB) (misspellings and typos left intact)
” The NAZI party, masters of propaganda, were quite aware of this charactistics in some minds. Hitler or Goebbels knew that the most zealous followers of fascism were those who were previously zealous communist, those most avid of followers did not come from those who were tepid in accepting any ideology, but from the ranks of those who had to believe totally and unquestioningly in one, no matter what it was.
Such individuals care not what the ideology is, it is the absoluteness and totality of it in their minds that is most important. It is the emotional satisfaction and security they get from “believing” so totally that they are after. ‘
A perfect description of the true believers and followers of evolution.
The timeline for the forced learning of evolution fits nicely with the rise of the Nazi party on Germany.
Is there a clue there?
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 1:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “OK Johnson. Scott presented you with the probable lineage through the ages of the giraffe based on the fossil record. ”
PROBABLE?, as in MAYBE?. as in “WELL, IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED”?, as in ” OUR BEST GUESS?”
As you have been told on at least three separate occasions, WLJ, scientists always talk in terms of probabilities since nothing is 100% certain. The fact that you continue to ignore this in order to put out more of your BS only demonstrates that you are not interested in the truth but in playing word games. And I notice that once again you have tried to change the subject in order to avoid my challenge to supply us with any physical evidence for your point of view. What’s the matter? Afraid to demonstrate how empty your arguments really are?
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 1:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whew! That was a lot of catching up, Willis!
As to the part addressed to me, I have repeatedly stated why I feel this debate would be a sham: Because one side is faith based and the other side is not. Faith cannot be argued, and non-faith can’t be argued either. And even if you could convince someone to abandon their faith (or argue some faith into the non-believer), why would you want to?
I am tired of explaining my position on this; a few have answered my questions but you, Willis have not been one of them so far.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 1:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “But, that ‘public limelight’ must be avoided at all costs. Sorta like hiding from the light of day by lurking in the shadows from fear that others will see the truth you are trying to hide?”
You continue to ignore anything which makes your side of the argument look bad and this is a perfect example. So I call to your attention once again that far from avoiding the public limelight, this debate has occurred many times, notably at Dover PA where those opposed to evolution were ruled by the Christian judge to have no basis in fact (and indeed were severely chastized for their documented dishonesty). Thus intelligent design was shown in the judge’s written opinion to be neither intelligent nor science. Deal with it WLJ. You have not got a leg to stand on!
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 1:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Post #109
” dc
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:13 am PM This User Report this comment
RL,
I am quite certain that you meant to write ” mature ” in your last post. However, on reflection, “manure” might be more appropriate for the stuff coming from WLJ and co. ”
Actually, the manure thing fits the BBB very nicely.
It’s not the ‘creationist’ side that is hiding from a public airings of their philosophies.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 1:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually in a post a few days back, Class of 52 stated that of course evolution was faith based.
Theory is defined as speculation, as in belief, as in not provable.
So it would be one “faith based” group debating another “faith based” group. Sounds fair to me.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 2:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Post #124
” As you have been told on at least three separate occasions, WLJ, scientists always talk in terms of probabilities since nothing is 100% certain. The fact that you continue to ignore this in order to put out more of your BS only demonstrates that you are not interested in the truth but in playing word games. And I notice that once again you have tried to change the subject in order to avoid my challenge to supply us with any physical evidence for your point of view. ”
In other words, evolution is based on ‘probabilities’?
The only thing you have been able to prove is your unwillingness to accept that your religion is just as faith based as creationism.
As to your ‘requirement’ that I ‘prove’ my position.
No, I have presented more than enough ‘evidence’, and you have agreed more than enough times, that you are required to rely on faith.
Faith based?
It’s a religion.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 2:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Post #125.
” ashhugger
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 1:27 pm PM This User Report this comment
Whew! That was a lot of catching up, Willis!
As to the part addressed to me, I have repeatedly stated why I feel this debate would be a sham: Because one side is faith based and the other side is not. Faith cannot be argued, and non-faith can’t be argued either. And even if you could convince someone to abandon their faith (or argue some faith into the non-believer), why would you want to?
I am tired of explaining my position on this; a few have answered my questions but you, Willis have not been one of them so far.:
Oh, perhaps you missed the entire underlying tone of my side has been ‘ there is a total lack of honesty on the side of the BBB’.
They readily admit that they rely on faith, but refuse to acknowledge that they rely on faith.
I realize that sounds like a moronic position, but that is what the BBB has been doing.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From post #123-”Such individuals care not what the ideology is, it is the absoluteness and totality of it in their minds that is most important. It is the emotional satisfaction and security they get from “believing” so totally that they are after.”
This is a textbook definition of the classic evangelical Christian mindset and accurately describes virtually all of WSJ’s positions. ‘
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 2:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Assert, squirm, fold like a lawn chair. Is there a pattern here? You don’t actually fish, do you Willis? You just enjoy putting the worm on the hook?
Assert, squirm, fold like a lawn chair. Is there an evolutionist factory somewhere that produces little cookie cutter clones. Assert, squirm, fold like a lawn chair. It is like listening to a continuous loop tape of Wham. Assert, squirm, fold like a lawn chair.
I don’ know, whachuwana do?
I don’ know, whachuwana do?
Assert, squirm, fold like a lawn chair.
This has all the intellectual value of frying ants with a magnifying glass.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 2:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OH sugarfoot? (charter member of the BBB)
Are you paying attention here?
Your “quote” was my quote from mr liartes.
But to put it all back in context.
Post #123
” Such individuals care not what the ideology is, it is the absoluteness and totality of it in their minds that is most important. It is the emotional satisfaction and security they get from “believing” so totally that they are after. ‘
A perfect description of the true believers and followers of evolution.
The timeline for the forced learning of evolution fits nicely with the rise of the Nazi party on Germany.
Is there a clue there? ”
Now that’s it is back into context, it makes a lot more sense.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 2:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well if the quote fits, you can’t acquit. Once again, unfortunately, I find myself in agreement with AP. This is like watching paint dry.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 3:35 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “In other words, evolution is based on ‘probabilities’?
All of science is based on probabilities, which you would know if you knew anything whatsoever about science.
WLJ: As to your ‘requirement’ that I ‘prove’ my position.
No, I have presented more than enough ‘evidence’,
Not a single shred of physical evidence have you ever presented in these forums. I am calling you out on that one. Prove it!
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 4:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis-I knew exactly who the quote was from. What I said on was that I felt that the portion of the quote I used accurately described the preconceived mindset you bring to almost all subjects you choose to comment on.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 5:38 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Would someone please remind sugarfoot that he is in the middle of a childish temper tantrum and not speaking to me directly?
Thank You so much.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 6:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
uhoh…. spittle time again gene?
OK.
The various and assorted members of the BBB presented plenty of evidence that proved my point for me, thereby negating any claim you may feel you have.
evolution is based on guesses and maybes, and possibles, and a whole bunch of other faith based what ifs’.
In other words, when compared to the actual creationists position, it is a faith based religion.
One.Voice and American_Patriot.
Watching paint dry takes less time, is more fun, and makes more sense than abusing the few brain cells the BBB retains.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 6:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ: “The various and assorted members of the BBB presented plenty of evidence that proved my point for me, thereby negating any claim you may feel you have.
evolution is based on guesses and maybes, and possibles, and a whole bunch of other faith based what ifs’.
In other words, when compared to the actual creationists position, it is a faith based religion.”
Garbage. This is apparently all you got. Your “contribution” consists entirely of unsupported personal opinion, schoolboy taunts, and vast ignorance about this subject. I think I am going to join Sugarfoot and look for posters who can give me an intellectually meaningful discussion. So long, Johnson
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 7:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
WLJ,
See I told you he’d fold up like a lawn chair. That always happens when you ask a question that he can’t answer. All symbolism, no substance.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 9:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Two intelligent people can look at the same evidence and come up with two very different hypothesis of what is going on. In this case the bottom line is that they each have faith in their core beliefs. One has faith that there is a creator and the other has faith that there is not. Neither hypothesis can be tested scientifically.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 9:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan,
That is true, but the problem is that they aren’t looking at the same evidence.
All of the leading creationist organizations (ICR, AIG, CRI, etc.) all have mission statements that their members are required to sign that state quite plainly that any evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of the bible will be discounted and ignored.
They claim to have a different hypothesis using the same evidence, but their own mission statement says that they only accept the evidence that supports their pre-existing conclusion.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 9:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Somehow I knew Willis wouldn’t accept the evidence supplied. I believe I even predicted as much. Does that make me a prophet?
Naw, it was like predicting a brick would fall when you drop it. Of course, gravity is just a theory, too…
And I see that no one has yet acknowledged the challenge I set forth, nor has anyone explained how someone who has kept the same position could be backsliding. Just more insults and crows about the gutless evolutionists.
You guys don’t even need us. You’re carrying on both sides of the conversation.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 9:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I have no reason to doubt what you say is true, all of the organizations you mentioned are Christian based and would have the Bible as a core belief. However there are many individuals who have examined the evidence and have come to a belief that biological organisms could not have come about through random mutations, and that don’t accept biblical creation. Many of these people, contrary to some of the opinions expressed here, have a scientific education and background. What is different about these folks is that they did not rule out the possibility of a creator when they examined the evidence. They lacked the faith in the lack of a creator.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 9:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Evolution doesn’t rule out a creator. It says nothing about it either way.
I have to question the knowledge level of the experts you refer to if they actually doubt evolution could occur through random mutation, because that leaves out fully half of the equation - natural selection. Evolution is not a random process.
They may have scientific credentials, but are the in fields related to biology? AIG has a famous list of “critics of evolution.” 99% of the names on the list have no biology credentials at all, but are engineers and philosophers.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 9:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
You are correct, the theory of evolution is not just about random mutations, it also is about having a very small percentage of those mutations being advantageous and having those mutations enter the gene pool. The theory also has trouble accounting for situations when concurrent mutations would be required to allow natural selection to take place. An elephant’s trunk would not be advantageous without a complex set of muscles. What would be the advantage of a long trunk without the muscles? What would be the advantage of complex muscles without a long flexible trunk? What would be the advantage of a 5.01 centimeter “pre-trunk” over one that is 5 centimeters?
Once again I do not defend AIG or other organizations, but yes there are many people with biological backgrounds who have come to the conclusion that there is a creator. Same evidence, different conclusions.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan: “Once again I do not defend AIG or other organizations, but yes there are many people with biological backgrounds who have come to the conclusion that there is a creator. Same evidence, different conclusions.”
I am more than a little mystified by these two sentences. Scientists do not draw any conclusions regarding a Creator one way or the other from biological evidence. Science has nothing to say about whether or not a supernatural being exists. These are different realms of human endeavor and thought. As Scott pointed out, plenty of people acept that the god of Christianity smimply worked through the laws of evolution in populating the earth. Or are you perhaps implying that organisms were created in their present form a la the Creationist viewpoint?
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I was trying to point out that educated people who have looked at the data have come to the conclusion that biological life could not of happened spontaneously, but would have to be the result of some design process that is not accounted for in the theory of evolution. Same evidence, different conclusions.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan: “I was trying to point out that educated people who have looked at the data have come to the conclusion that biological life could not of happened spontaneously, but would have to be the result of some design process that is not accounted for in the theory of evolution. Same evidence, different conclusions.
But once again, evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. That is a quite different subject. Biologists draw no conclusions whatsoever about the origin of life from any data for the principles of evolution. There are a number of notions about how life actually began but it is commonly agreed that all such ideas are mere speculation at this point.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
52, True, I should have said that many educated people who have looked at the data have come to the conclusion that complex biological life could not of developed spontaneously, but would have to be the result of some design process that is not accounted for in the theory of evolution. I stand corrected.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
You are correct, the theory of evolution is not just about random mutations, it also is about having a very small percentage of those mutations being advantageous and having those mutations enter the gene pool.”
The vast majority of mutations being neutral. With you so far.
“The theory also has trouble accounting for situations when concurrent mutations would be required to allow natural selection to take place. An elephant’s trunk would not be advantageous without a complex set of muscles. What would be the advantage of a long trunk without the muscles? What would be the advantage of complex muscles without a long flexible trunk? What would be the advantage of a 5.01 centimeter “pre-trunk” over one that is 5 centimeters?”
Ah hah. This is not a problem after all. Evolution doesn’t say that the elephant’s trunk popped into the gene pool without the muscles to move it. As the trunk got longer, the muscles grew with it. It all happens together, with certain individuals having a bit longer trunk or a bit better set of muscles. Eventually, those improvements spread through the gene pool.
Interestingly, while doing Willis’s research on the giraffe’s neck, I learned that the ability to reach food may not have been the primary benefit to the longer neck. Male giraffes use their neck to battle for mates, and the longer the neck, the more chance for one. Thus a longer neck would have been directly linked to successful reproduction.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Isn’t it interesting how the intellectual level and civil tone of a conversation is elevated when WLJ is absent. I keep telling you guys - ignore Willis and don’t let him draw you into his childish web with his taunts. He is the lowest common denominator of the forum. Don’t let him destroy it.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Scott
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 9:14 pm PM This User Report this comment
Somehow I knew Willis wouldn’t accept the evidence supplied. I believe I even predicted as much. Does that make me a prophet? ”
But scott, I accepted your “proof”, and I also accepted the generals explanation of what it all means.
“probabilities”
Now, in the ’scientific’ circles you hang out in, “probabilities”, may equal “uh huh, sure”, but in the real world, ‘probabilities means “well, maybe, but no guarantees”.
so, the ‘proof’ you offered left out any indications of why all the intermediate species died off, but left the current species alive, well, and flourishing, but they were only one ‘happy little accident’ away from their precursors.
But, as I keep telling you, you are free to practice your religion, but stop trying to shove it down our throats.
It’s a violation of OUR First Amendment Rights, as espoused by the atheists of Western Colorado.
Your religion says that you descended from monkeys. I fully support your right to believe that.
My religion states quite plainly that I descended from Humans.
There is more than ample evidence in this thread to prove that point.
And I’m not even a creationist.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Eventually, those improvements spread through the gene pool. ”
gene has a pool with stuff spreading through it?
Does his pool man know about this?
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks Sugarfoot. I have many friends that I do not always agree with. That does not mean that they still are not my friends.
Scott, “It all happens together, with certain individuals having a bit longer trunk or a bit better set of muscles.” A “pre-trunk” would have to have some form of competitive advantage to become dominant in the gene pool. Maybe I am missing it but what would be the advantage of a 5 centimeter nose, muscles or not?
Bed time for the kid, will check for your comments in the a.m.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 10:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“But scott, I accepted your “proof”, and I also accepted the generals explanation of what it all means.
“probabilities”
Now, in the ’scientific’ circles you hang out in, “probabilities”, may equal “uh huh, sure”, but in the real world, ‘probabilities means “well, maybe, but no guarantees”.”
Willis, you may not be aware of it but it’s only a “probability” that the sun will come up tomorrow. It’s only a “probability” that you won’t fall up when you get out of bed. It’s only a “probability” that the molecules of air in your room aren’t all on one side, leaving a vacuum on the other side. Science does not deal in certainties, only probabilities. That you expected anything different only illustrates your lack of knowledge about science.
“so, the ‘proof’ you offered left out any indications of why all the intermediate species died off, but left the current species alive, well, and flourishing, but they were only one ‘happy little accident’ away from their precursors.”
Find a new tune. This “happy little accident” is getting tiresome. Even a creationist would be able to come up with something new by now. Nevertheless, yes, that’s more or less right. That “happy little accident” made the existing species better equipped to survive in their environment. You may be figuring this out after all.
“But, as I keep telling you, you are free to practice your religion, but stop trying to shove it down our throats.”
Stop getting it wrong, then. Just stop posting about it and I’ll stop correcting you. It’s simplicity itself. You are in a public forum and I have just as much right to correct your mistakes as you have to make them. If you don’t like being corrected, then stop posting about it.
“It’s a violation of OUR First Amendment Rights, as espoused by the atheists of Western Colorado.”
As Christians are so fond of saying to atheists, “you don’t have the right NOT to be offended. If you don’t like what’s being said, you can just leave.”
“Your religion says that you descended from monkeys. I fully support your right to believe that.”
Okay, now I know you’re just pulling our legs. Surely no one in this day and age could be so dramatically misinformed about evolution as to still make the “monkey” mistake? Monkeys aren’t apes, Willis.
“My religion states quite plainly that I descended from Humans.”
Your religion says a lot of things. Stoned any kids to death for being disrespectful to their parents lately?
“There is more than ample evidence in this thread to prove that point.”
If you’re referring to you and those on your side of this issue, I’ll take the apes.
“And I’m not even a creationist.”
Big deal. You have the same level of understanding about evolution and you have the same manners. I don’t see a difference.
Posted May 31st, 2008 at 11:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan,
Try going on all fours and eating grass while keeping a watch for predators. Those that don’t have to stick their head in the grass all the way can see better.
Just one possibility off the top of my head.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 9:38 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullvan: “52, True, I should have said that many educated people who have looked at the data have come to the conclusion that complex biological life could not of(sic) developed spontaneously, but would have to be the result of some design process that is not accounted for in the theory of evolution. I stand corrected.
well now I am confused again by what you mean. I thought we were talking about the origin of life (in the beginning). Now you use the terms development of complex life as accounted for in the theory of evolution. If it is truly evolution and the development of life that you are talking about, then I have to say that any contrary conclusions drawn by “educated people” must be faith based, because there is absolutely no evidence in the scientific literature to support any view except the well established principles of evolution.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 10:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Some thoughts:
Science generally accepts that some cataclysmic event started the whole process…Big Bang…Creation by God…Does it matter? Is one harder to believe than the other?
Next, things evolve or are created by God. The Bible says God created the trees and flowers and the animals and fishes, etc. Doesn’t say how long it took ( yeah, yeah, spare me the six day bit. ) Didn’t God invent the evolutionary process, realizing that a static entity could not endure changing environments without some method for adaptation?
Science says that all life came from some spontaneous event that created small life forms from which we evolved. However, there are gaps in our knowledge. Can we rule out intervention by some sentient force at an appropriate time? Does it matter? Is one easier to believe than the other? Can anyone say exactly how it was done? Could the development of DNA have been completely spontaneous?
I guess my point is that, the academic discussion aside, there is sooo much hyperbole and emotion generated by this issue and no one, on either side, actually knows, for sure.
It is, indeed, an interesting topic, as long as we can keep it in the realm of academic discussion. Difficult to do when some parties are rabid fundamentalist Christians and others are rabid fundamentalist atheists.
As for me, I do not, in my lifetime, expect to ever know… for sure.
So I think I will just go for a hike in the desert and not worry about it.
Peace.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 12:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m with you, dc
Those who insist they know it was EXACTLY this way or that way seem to hate or fear the fact that they can’t possibly know everything. That is strange to someone like me who loves the unknown.
I believe the scientists come closer, but still do not know all of the secrets of the universe. No one can prove there is not a God, or intelligent life on other planets, or anything like that either.
So much arrogance coming from every direction.
I just shudder at the idea of the two “sides” going at it live in some public square. Just the thought of it embarrasses me.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 12:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger: “I believe the scientists come closer, but still do not know all of the secrets of the universe. No one can prove there is not a God,”
I have never known a scientist who has attempted to prove there is no God (but there may be someone of course). Richard Dawkins comes closest but even he admits that it is only thought experiments that he does. The overwhelming majority of scientists are agnostics, recognizing that it is not possible to get evidence for this question either way.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 1:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Let’s get back to the original letter.
“Why are the evolutionists so opposed to having a debate on the subject of intelligent design versus evolution?”
We’re not. I personally have accepted such a debate numerous times, only to have my challenge repeatedly ignored. I think a better question would be “Why are the creationists so opposed to a written debate?”
“If creationists don’t have an argument, won’t that become very clear very quickly? The public would be able to judge for themselves which side had the most sensible case. How could that be a drawback? Or is the public unable to think for itself?”
They are not unable to think (unwilling, in some cases though) but evolution is a complex subject and is not easily explained in an oral format. Creationism is simple and appeals to emotion are easily conveyed orally. It is simply not a fair venue for such a debate.
“Professor Bishop seems to think that the public would be confused by such a debate. Are the evolutionists afraid that they might lose the debate?”
No, because the evidence is all on our side. Such questions are not resolved by public debates, however, and such a debate would do nothing to further the study of evolution. It would give the impression that evolution cannot adequately answer its critics, which is a false impression. In short, there is simply nothing to gain.
“Professor Bishop has defined a good theory as one ‘which withstands all empirical attempts to refute it.’”
And evolution has done so for the last 150 years. What gives anyone the idea that a public debate is in any way an empirical test?
“Even Darwin stated in the Origin of Species that ‘A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question …’”
Creationism has no facts on their side. That’s the problem. And Darwin wasn’t talking about creationism in the first place.
“Are the evolutionists now too cowardly to allow someone to try to publicly refute their theory?”
Evolution will not be refuted in a public forum. If anyone wishes to refute evolution, they have to do the scientific way - by publishing research. Thus far the creationists have no research to publish and they are forced to try to convince the public using tactics like public debates.
“If they aren’t, why don’t we start the debate with something simple, such as spontaneous generation and the origin of life?”
As previously noted, these have nothing to do with evolution, and are not simple subjects anyway.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
To prove non-existence of something is, for all practical purposes, an impossibility.
In order to prove non-existence, it would be necessary to put something else in the same space; i.e. it is not a “god” but something else.
Even in the most abstract of philosophical and metaphysical terms, such presents an insurmountable problem, such as first identifying the space supposedly occupied, and where nothing else “is”.
Those who need to present “proof” are the ones that claim that a “god” does exist, as they are the ones attempting to build a structure upon that foundation. It is not the one who does not believe who has to prove non-existence as he/she is not the one attempting to erect anything on that spot, another spot perhaps, but certainly not that one.
How any discussion about this matter can get turned around to requiring or demanding “proof of non-existence” is beyond me. “Most people believe..” (How came they by such beliefs) is not proof, and neither are “I really believe..” (Emotion and not proof) nor “How do you explain..” (Explanation not required as not the one who claming something as fact).
When listening to the arguments or writings of theocrats, whom we find all too often in a state of great agitation, it is almost as if they “need” an answer to everything or, as if they have a spare exclamation point that is burning their fingers, and which they have to drop somewhere.
There appears to be an inability to accept our limitations as human beings, which is a very real inability to know and understand everything. Some questions, will always remain unanswered as it is not within our capacity to answer them. I would even speculate that, in most instances, we don’t even know the question to ask, never mind how it is to be formulated so as to obtain some meaningful answer.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 2:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres, just to make it clear I for one am not requesting any proof of non-existence. I just really like thinking about the possibility of a higher being, or extraterrestrials, or parallel universes, or any number of super cool things that MIGHT be out there.
The fact that these factors are unknown gives me a sense of lightness and freedom, of wonder and humility. It’s all good. Even fun. And in my opinion not to be taken so dang seriously.
I do believe faith can be deeper than just having a need to “know” the nature of our existence. To me people of faith come closest to demonstrating there IS a God when they say God is Love. The existence of love and more specifically, compassion — in humans as well as the animal kingdom — is the closest I believe we come to seeing “God” or some supernatural force in our midst.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 2:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger - My post was not directed at anyone in particular, except for those who would attempt to erect upon something that “may” or “may not” exist. And, if they do, they are the ones that need to prove “existence”, not the other way around.
Like you, I love to have my mind wander as to all the possibilities. We are, even as a planet, such a mere speck in the known universe, totally unaware of anything but what is here on this small planet, that to even try to look or contemplate beyond it, such as other “universes” beyond our own, or what may exist beyond it, and in what dimensions such may exist, at least to me, not only humbling but actually “exciting” as to its possibilities. Those are the things we will never learn about or achieve if we keep fighting the same battles over and over.
We speak of “love”, very honestly, I would now settle for respect between individuals, and merely because they are individual human beings worthy of respect, and but for no other reason.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 2:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Tell you what. I’ll agree to a public debate, as long as Trish makes the arraignments and pays for the venue, etc.
The conditions I request is that both sides must present a *positive* case for their respective position. That means, the “evolutionist” side presents a scientific case for evolution only, and the “creationist” presents only a scientific case FOR creation. All evidence presented must be backed by appropriate, PRIMARY citations from the scientific literature.
(written transcripts must be available)
To be clear, each side must present a evidence based presentation, detailing the scientific evidence for why his or her side is the best scientific explanation for the evidence. The presentation must presume that there are more than two possible alternatives, and the presenter must show why his or her alternative best fits the available evidence.
Any attempt to “prove” one’s position by dichotomy (ie, If creation is false, evolution must be true, or visa versa) is grounds for disqualification.
Any one of the competitors who bases his or her presentation on negative attacks on the other side, loses immediately. Any side that uses out of context quotations, or distortions of the other side’s position loses immediately. If any competitor is found using statements known to be false, (again, by reference to the scientific literature) that side loses immediately. Appeals to inappropriate authority, ad hominem, begging the question, and other logical fallacies will not be tolerated.
Are those terms acceptable?
Reddfrogg
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 3:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
As a follow up, just so you know, I’m not a professional scientist. I’m an interested amateur, and I don’t have any professional reputation to protect, or any reason to take the scientific side, other than I believe it to be correct. I’m not an atheist, and I don’t harbor any ill will toward the Bible, God, or any of his followers.
Reddfrogg
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well,I am familiar with these debates, and I have never seen Creationists present a scientific case for Creation with primary citations from the scientific literature because such citations do not exist. The Creationists always resort to quotes out of context, emotional appeals, attempts to cast doubt on dating methods such as 14C data by showing some well known inconsistencies, etc.
A friend of mine, Michael Shermer, (author of Why Darwin Matters) regularly engages in such debates against the advice of such people as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins. In his book, Dr. Shermer details many of the methods the ID debaters use. Among these is the insistence that methodological supernaturalism be permitted as a possible cause of the events we see. They use such arguments as: the best evidence for Creation is the impossibility of evolution. So as Shermer points out these debaters spend most of their time trying to discredit evolution. This often takes the tack of noting that the fossil record has gaps and demanding intermediates. When one is provided by the scientist, they simply respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record-one on either side of the transition. And they continue to say that the only acceptable proof will be the unbroken series of fossils that show every tiny transition between two life forms. They know this is impossible to demonstrate given the realities of fossilization and its rarity.
So good luck on trying to get a debater from the other side to agree to your terms (which are reasonable and the way a scientific debate should occur). The other side would probably bring in a professional debater from the Creation Institute in Seattle Washington who would never operate within the framework you set up. He would be entertaining and slippery. Also good luck finding a moderator who would or could enforce such conditions as you ask for. The Creation Institute professionals always find ways to slip around those guidelines, generally by slick appeals to the audience normally composed mostly of lay people who do not know the data or the issues.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Reddfrogg-I’ll bet you any amount of money the creationist/intelligent design folks will not agree with your presentation rules. They won’t because they can’t-you’ve constructed a level playing field, and they know they can’t complete a presentation without violating your very reasonable rules. In the end, the basis for their belief in “creationism/intelligent design” is the Book of Genesis, not proven fact. You win by default!!
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 4:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’ve read Shermer’s book, “Why People Believe Strange Things”, and I’ve read some of his articles. That’s why I set my conditions the way I did. It will be interesting to see the reasons why (if any are given) why my proposal will be rejected. I’m presently reading the book “Evolution, What the Fossils Say, and Why it Matters” by Donald Prothero. The foreward of the book was written by Mr. Shermer.
Reddfrogg
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 5:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Creationism is destroying the nation? Have you ever considered that evolution can be used as a basis for racism, a major basis for the destroying of a nation? Things were actually alot better morally and every other way for the people before evolution came along. Check out http://www.wallbuilders.com for more information on that.
Okay, Scott. You said “And evolution has done so for the last 150 years…”
Creationism has been around for ALOT longer than evolution. In the past several thousand years, there was general agreement that the world was created. Now, everyone did not agree on WHO created the world, but it was agreed that it was created. But, of course, you would say that how long it’s been around has nothing to do with authenticity. EXACTLY!! So quit bragging in centuries when we can brag in millennia and the whole thing of how long ideas have been around has nothing to do with the real argument.
No, I suppose the origin of life is not a simple subject…but it IS basic. That’s why I wanted to start there.
I did not say that I would debate, although I would be willing to do so in public (not on the internet) if it was asked of me. You have said that you are not a public speaker. Neither am I, so we’re even. I would also be willing to give you time to properly present your data, provided that the favor is returned. I like the idea of a series of debates; this way you would not have to present too much information at once. That would be easier on you and the audience, unless you hold to your idea that the audience (general public) is unable to grasp scientific principles.
I am not speaking of debating philosophy, theology, or the Bible; I am speaking of debating scientific data. I will not bring the Bible into the argument. You can say that the intelligent designer on my side is the God of the Bible, Allah, some alien teen or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don’t care. The question is ‘is it possible that something intelligent created this universe?’
If Darwin wasn’t talking about creationism, what WAS he talking about, anyway? What other views besides evolution and creationism were there at the time?
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sugarfoot, Reddfrogg’s rules are quite reasonable to me, but child labor laws would hold me back from getting money to pay for a venue…I’d have to look for sponsers. I would be happy to find a debater who would abide by accepted rules of debate, and I would do all I could to coorditate such an event.
Quick correction, though. Although some ID people believe the Book of Genesis, many do not and it is NOT the basis for our debate/arguemnt. The basis is the complexity of life and the idea that something, whether God, alien teenagers or the Flying Spaghetti Monster created it.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 6:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Reddfrogg: “I’m presently reading the book “Evolution, What the Fossils Say, and Why it Matters” by Donald Prothero. The foreward of the book was written by Mr. Shermer”
Excellent. This is one of the best and most authoritative books on the subject. It demolishes the Creationists case in no uncertain terms.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 6:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Addendum: I think Trish is going to be very surprised when she actually tries to get a debater for the Creationists who would follow those ground rules. In the very unlikely event that would happen, I would love to see such a debate.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 6:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class,
Perhaps you will pay for the venue.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 6:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The Wedge Strategy moves to the next step. For a quick reminder of how it operates, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy. Notice the part that says “Discovery Institute fellows have significant advantages in money, political sophistication, and experience over their opponents in the scientific and educational communities.” Also notice the part that says “wedge members sometimes deny that ID makes any claims about the identity of the designer.” Saying that you will follow the ground rules of debate is an entirely different matter than actually following them, since the main objective is to get the debate, whatever it takes.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 6:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
FutureQuest: “Saying that you will follow the ground rules of debate is an entirely different matter than actually following them, since the main objective is to get the debate, whatever it takes.”
Exactly right FutureQuest. The history of these debates is replete with violations of the rules from the ID side and with actual documented dishonesty from those Christian folks who will apparently stop at nothing to try to get an advantage in the quest to impose their cult beliefs on the rest of us. Remember that the judge in the Dover PA trial severely criticized the Intelligent Design folks for their lies in his written judgement. And the judge is a Christian!
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 8:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually, Classof52, I don’t care what position people take regarding their personal religious beliefs, or even their opinion on evolution. It’s a free country, and they are adults. They believe what they want and form their own opinions, and I believe what I want and form my own opinions. I do have a problem, though, when they try to use the sterling name of science to legitimize and disseminate their religious beliefs in the classroom under the guise of “teach the controversy,” which is where this “public debate” thing is intended to go. The courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly turned back efforts to inject religious beliefs in the science curriculum. So the creationists are following a stealth process of cloaking their true intentions, as admitted by the Wedge Document. (Personally, I think they need to go down to the City lawn and read that part about “bearing false witness” on the stone tablets there.) First, science has given us incredible benefits in medicine, technology, you name it. Truth and objective research is the very soul of science, and is worth fighting for. Second, I don’t want our school district to wind up paying $2 million, like the Dover school district did, for a suit they’re going to lose.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 9:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Trisha, I suspect you will have some difficulty finding someone from the ID movement willing to debate under my terms, but you are welcome to try.
You said:
“Quick correction, though. Although some ID people believe the Book of Genesis, many do not and it is NOT the basis for our debate/arguemnt. The basis is the complexity of life and the idea that something, whether God, alien teenagers or the Flying Spaghetti Monster created it.”
I think you will find that all the ID people, whether they wish to admit it or not, are basing their disagreement with evolution on solely religious motives. In short the basis for ID is ultimately Genesis.
The idea that the complexity of life requires an “intelligent designer” is first and foremost an argument from incredulity,or “god of the gaps”. It’s in the vernacular a “cop out”. for more info, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
The ID supporters are saying that since they can’t imagine how life could have come about through natural processes, then no one can ever provide an answer, therefore one must appeal to an “intelligence”. By this intelligence they mean God, specifically the Judeo/Christian idea of God. No ID proponent seriously suggest the designer might be aliens (which only pushes the problem of how did life begin farther back)
For political reasons, they can’t actually come out and say the “intelligent Designer is God” (that would run afoul of the 1st amendment). Therefore they must use vague appeal to “intelligence”.
Real scientists, when faced with a difficult question, keep searching, and openly admit that they don’t know, for now, and keep looking. Appealing to an unknown, and unknowable “intelligence” to account for a biological question cuts off any inquiry, and is why scientists all over the world, of all different religious backgrounds, oppose “intelligent design”.
Complexity of life is not a insurmountable problem for science, and the normal natural processes produce complexity in systems all the time. Rocks form crystals without “intelligent design”. Snowflakes, in all their beauty and complexity don’t require appeal to the supernatural to explain their appearance. The same for life itself. Exactly how life first began, while still a mystery, will, most likely be discovered, but ID won’t be the ones who find out. They have given up on science, and are retreating to arguments from personal ignorance.
I’m not trying to say that religious explanations have no place in society, but they don’t provide answers that scientists can use. What ID is , is just creationism in different clothes.
Reddfrogg
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 9:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Future Quest: “Actually, Classof52, I don’t care what position people take regarding their personal religious beliefs, or even their opinion on evolution. It’s a free country, and they are adults. They believe what they want and form their own opinions, and I believe what I want and form my own opinions. I do have a problem, though, when they try to use the sterling name of science to legitimize and disseminate their religious beliefs in the classroom under the guise of “teach the controversy,” which is where this “public debate” thing is intended to go.”
I agree completely.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 9:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
From scott #156:
” Okay, now I know you’re just pulling our legs. Surely no one in this day and age could be so dramatically misinformed about evolution as to still make the “monkey” mistake? Monkeys aren’t apes, Willis. ”
True, but they are a good source of incessant screeching for the treetops.
And I’m going with the genetic similarities with this one.
Posted June 1st, 2008 at 10:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
What will a public debate accomplish? Regardless of which side “wins” or “loses” the debate, all the physical evidence proving evolution will still be there and the scientific community will continue to use the evolutionary theory because it works – it explains and it predicts too many things. Think you’re going to educate people about evolution? I think the task of explaining evolution in a public debate would be akin to pouring the ocean into a thimble – there is just too much information and background needed. And to compound that problem, think of the fact that your entire explanation is going to be reduced to two sentences when it is reported by the media. Think you’re going to change minds? The debate is going to be attended by people who’ve already made up their minds, and it will be a circus. People sincerely interested in the issue will take do a least some reading and looking at different sources, rather than relying on media sound bites of a debate.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 5:56 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
FutureQuest-Well said. I think it’s time to move on.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 6:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
FutureQuest,
What Sugarfoot said. You sum up exactly what has happened in just about every oral debate I have ever seen or read about on this subject. The only exceptions were those with a much narrower focus, on just one aspect of the subject.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Trish said: “Creationism is destroying the nation? Have you ever considered that evolution can be used as a basis for racism, a major basis for the destroying of a nation? Things were actually alot better morally and every other way for the people before evolution came along. Check out http://www.wallbuilders.com for more information on that.”
Christianity can be used as a basis for racism too. Does that invalidate it? Global temperatures are rising as the number of pirate attacks in Somalia increase, too. That doesn’t mean they’re related.
“Okay, Scott. You said “And evolution has done so for the last 150 years…”
Creationism has been around for ALOT longer than evolution. In the past several thousand years, there was general agreement that the world was created. Now, everyone did not agree on WHO created the world, but it was agreed that it was created. But, of course, you would say that how long it’s been around has nothing to do with authenticity. EXACTLY!! So quit bragging in centuries when we can brag in millennia and the whole thing of how long ideas have been around has nothing to do with the real argument.”
You missed the point. I said evolution has been tested and passed for the last 150 years. Creationism was the default for thousands of years, but was discarded when it failed to explain what was seen in the geologic record. The scientists involved were creationists, but recognized that their current ideas did not pass the tests that were being conducted.
“No, I suppose the origin of life is not a simple subject…but it IS basic. That’s why I wanted to start there.”
Abiogenesis is even more complicated than evolution. It’s not a good place to start. The fundamentals of evolution would be more basic, and are obviously appropriate.
“I did not say that I would debate, although I would be willing to do so in public (not on the internet) if it was asked of me. You have said that you are not a public speaker. Neither am I, so we’re even. I would also be willing to give you time to properly present your data, provided that the favor is returned. I like the idea of a series of debates; this way you would not have to present too much information at once. That would be easier on you and the audience, unless you hold to your idea that the audience (general public) is unable to grasp scientific principles.
I am not speaking of debating philosophy, theology, or the Bible; I am speaking of debating scientific data. I will not bring the Bible into the argument. You can say that the intelligent designer on my side is the God of the Bible, Allah, some alien teen or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I don’t care. The question is ‘is it possible that something intelligent created this universe?’”
Of course it is possible. Evolution says nothing either way. It just says it’s not necessary.
As for the time, would an hour for opening statements be too much? I think I can get the very basics conveyed in an hour. Of course, the audience may not want to sit for two hours before the debate starts.
“If Darwin wasn’t talking about creationism, what WAS he talking about, anyway? What other views besides evolution and creationism were there at the time?
Lamarckism, for one.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 6:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis said: True, but they are a good source of incessant screeching for the treetops.
And I’m going with the genetic similarities with this one.”
Ooh, way to ignore the substance of the post and just throw insults. Are you SURE you’re not a creationist?
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 7:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks scott.
I stand by my statements.
” From scott #156:
” Okay, now I know you’re just pulling our legs. Surely no one in this day and age could be so dramatically misinformed about evolution as to still make the “monkey” mistake? Monkeys aren’t apes, Willis. ”
True, but they are a good source of incessant screeching for the treetops.
And I’m going with the genetic similarities with this one.”
You made the comment of, “Surely no one in this day and age could be so dramatically misinformed about evolution as to still make the “monkey” mistake? Monkeys aren’t apes, Willis”
True, monkeys aren’t apes, but they are both PRIMATES and evolution has determined (in your mind), that mankind descended from primates.
The Great Apes are not known for their incessant screeching from the treetops.
Nor are the majority of other primates.
I fail to see the difference from the primordial monkey and the ranks of the BBB.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 7:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I find it interesting that ReddFrogg, as is typical of the liberals in any field of endeavor, wants Trish to PAY all the expenses, make all the arrangements, and just provide his side with a place to show up, with no effort or expense oh their part.
But, as I said, it is typical, their date should pay their way to the dance.
Preferably somebody elses date should pay, to protect any chances for a second date later.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Almost, Willis.
Humans ARE primates. Just like humans are mammals and humans are vertebrates. Its a classification thing, based on morphology and genetics.
You know, you have a chance to turn the biological world on its ear. Just get your DNA tested, and if you don’t show 98% in common with chimpanzees (like the rest of us), you’d disprove evolution! You’d get a Nobel prize!
Trish,
By the way, you might take note that Willis thinks he is not descended from apes like the rest of us. That sounds like a basis for racism, too. A much better basis than evolution provides, anyway.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 7:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No scott,
” Humans ARE primates. Just like humans are mammals and humans are vertebrates. Its a classification thing, based on morphology and genetics. ”
HUMANS are HUMAN.
Primates are Primates, and most assuredly, those descended from primates are primates.
” By the way, you might take note that Willis thinks he is not descended from apes like the rest of us. That sounds like a basis for racism, too. A much better basis than evolution provides, anyway. ”
No racism involved here scott, just keeping the species separate and distinct.
Every one of your posts is based on your pride of YOUR ancestors.
Same with MY ancestors, I AM VERY PROUD of a complete line of HUMAN ANCESTORS.
The problem seems to arise when you want to cross over and be a human too.
Why do you want to deny your ancestors scott?
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:34 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“No scott,
HUMANS are HUMAN.”
And here you keep saying you understand evolution. Why don’t you ask a biologist about that.
“Primates are Primates, and most assuredly, those descended from primates are primates.”
Very good! Some of this may be sinking in yet.
“No racism involved here scott, just keeping the species separate and distinct.”
I didn’t say there was racism. I said there was a better basis for racism under your system than there is under evolution. This is precisely why Hitler rejected Darwin. The idea of a Master Race didn’t fit with a common ancestor. I’m not saying you agree with this, but the basis is the same.
“Every one of your posts is based on your pride of YOUR ancestors.
Same with MY ancestors, I AM VERY PROUD of a complete line of HUMAN ANCESTORS.
The problem seems to arise when you want to cross over and be a human too.
Why do you want to deny your ancestors scott?”
Go get your DNA tested and we’ll talk about who’s denying what. Here is a falsifiable test for your claim, WIllis. Surely you aren’t afraid of the truth?
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:46 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
scott, you are still running away from debating a school girl on this subject.
Everything between me and you is a mere subterfuge to deflect the topic.
Ya got nuthin’ new to play with little buddy.
Go back to hdqtrs and brainstorm a new strategy with the leaders of the BBB and get back with us.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:48 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Some threads end up as dog and pony shows.
OBVIOUSLY this has descended into a Human and monkey show.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
How many times do I have to accept a written debate before it sinks in? How many times to I have to explain my reasoning for not doing an oral debate before it sinks in?
You can ignore it all you want, but people are noticing that it is YOU who have nothing new. For three days I have accepted a debate, and for three days you have steadfastly ignored my acceptance. You have also ignored my question as to why a written debate is unacceptable to creationists. I know why, but your refusal to answer speaks volumes about your integrity.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “You can ignore it all you want, but people are noticing that it is YOU who have nothing new. For three days I have accepted a debate, and for three days you have steadfastly ignored my acceptance. You have also ignored my question as to why a written debate is unacceptable to creationists. I know why, but your refusal to answer speaks volumes about your integrity.”
Scott you have put your finger on the reasons I no longer respond to anything WLJ writes. He is not interested in the truth or even a civil discussion. He ignores the rules of evidence, argues mainly from unsupported opinions, practices school-boy taunts and insults, has no original ideas or creative thoughts and in general is just interested in playing word games. Life is too short to waste on such people. Several others on these forums have apparently come to the same conclusion.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 9:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Here we go agin….
” How many times do I have to accept a written debate before it sinks in? ”
scottie, you ‘accepted’ your offer, not the original offer of an Oral Debate.
” How many times to I have to explain my reasoning for not doing an oral debate before it sinks in? ‘
Obviously until it sinks in that your method comes across as fear of public humiliation and disgrace.
” For three days I have accepted a debate, and for three days you have steadfastly ignored my acceptance. ‘
And for three days, we have explained repeatedly that what you ‘accepted’ was not what was offered.
A FACT that you have ” steadfastly ignored “.
You have nuthin’.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 9:49 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh GOOD, gene is online right now.
So glad I was able to catch up with you gene.
This is the question you failed to answer in the forum.
” Mr Fox, in all seriousness, because I truly do want to understand your position on this issue.
Vermont has a “free to carry’ law that states any law abiding adult may carry a weapon, concealed or not at any time.
Do you agree with this law?
Do you believe that a person has the right to protect and defend his family in his own home?
Do you believe that a person has the right to protect and defend himself outside his home?
Do you believe that politicians have the right to limit when and where a law abiding citizen may carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise?
I trust I will get honest, straightforward answers to these question.
Thank You in advance. ”
Now, I know it’s off topic and all, but you seem to have a problem staying on most topics anyway, and it does provide a little comic relief for the other readers.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 10:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, POOF!!!
He disappeared again.
I wonder why?
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
You have misplaced Class of 52 again? Somewhere in cyberspace lurks an evil force. For our own protection I guess we are going to have to put a bell on the roving gnome. With his fingers in his eyes and all that, he could just wander off and fall into a super-nova or something.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 10:36 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Classof52 said: “Scott you have put your finger on the reasons I no longer respond to anything WLJ writes. He is not interested in the truth or even a civil discussion. He ignores the rules of evidence, argues mainly from unsupported opinions, practices school-boy taunts and insults, has no original ideas or creative thoughts and in general is just interested in playing word games. Life is too short to waste on such people. Several others on these forums have apparently come to the same conclusion.”
I know. I just like letting him continue to demonstrate how childish he is.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“scottie, you ‘accepted’ your offer, not the original offer of an Oral Debate.”
It’s called a counter proposal, and it means that I did not refuse to participate at all, a fact which has been completely ignored.
“Obviously until it sinks in that your method comes across as fear of public humiliation and disgrace.”
Having my words permanently saved in cyberspace for all to see for years to come shows fear of public humiliation. Okay, whatever.
“And for three days, we have explained repeatedly that what you ‘accepted’ was not what was offered.”
No, you haven’t. You have completely ignored my counter-proposal, instead throwing grade school taunts about being scared of a little girl. Please specify the post in which this was explained and the reasons why a written debate are unacceptable.
“You have nuthin’.”
Nothing you’ll accept, but that’s your problem, not mine.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 10:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
What was offered was a PUBLIC DEBATE.
A venue you have wiggled and squirmed around more than any African Nightcrawler possibly could.
Instead, you choose to hide behind the anonymity of ’scott’, never to show your face in public.
Miss Yeager has not tried to hide in anonymous website cloakrooms away from the light of public scrutiny.
Why are you?
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“What was offered was a PUBLIC DEBATE.”
And what was counter-offered was a PUBLIC written debate. What’s your point?
“A venue you have wiggled and squirmed around more than any African Nightcrawler possibly could.”
Explaining my reasons (multiple times) for not doing a public debate is wiggling and squirming in your world. I’ll remember that.
“Instead, you choose to hide behind the anonymity of ’scott’, never to show your face in public.”
Coming from the person who claimed that “Willis_Leon_Johnson” may or may not be your real name, I find this quite amusing.
“Miss Yeager has not tried to hide in anonymous website cloakrooms away from the light of public scrutiny.
Why are you?”
Because I volunteer with an organization that would kick me out if by beliefs were made public. A predominantly Christian organization. Unfortunately, it is still publically acceptable to discriminate against
atheists. So yesm,I have to remain anonymous because of people like you, Willis. Does that make you proud?
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I notice you did not point out the post in which you explained why a written debate was not acceptable. Assert and ignore.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 11:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
We note that Mr. Johnson is back again. Thank goodness, as yesterdays discourse was becoming challenging, and some arguments even had some teeth in them. Now we can get back to a baser level where he and his fellow emotionally and intellectually challenged sycophants feel much more comfortable.
We can get back to the type of discourse they so much enjoy, conclusions and opinions where “facts” and accuracy are not important. Where how “feeling” is more important than “knowing”. Of course, that also includes the complete freedom to take the liberty of ascribing evil motivation and purposes to others. I have not yet learned how that is done but, what the heck, in the “All Knowing World of Johnsonism”, that is not important.
Welcom back Mr. Johnson!
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 11:21 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Interesting, the official spokesman for the BBB news and propaganda agency managed to post LESS than 14 paragraphs.
I am impressed.
Thank You so much.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’m trying to dig through the logic here scott.
” Because I volunteer with an organization that would kick me out if by beliefs were made public. A predominantly Christian organization. Unfortunately, it is still publically acceptable to discriminate against
atheists. So yesm,I have to remain anonymous because of people like you, Willis. Does that make you proud? ”
Well, you have all these firmly held beliefs that all Christians are such bad people, yet you feel the need to hang out with them?
And if they find out what your true feelings and beliefs of them are, they will refuse to associate with someone that really doesn’t have the same belief system that they have?
Ok, now tell me one more time…
All this ‘courage’ of your convictions, but not enough ‘courage’ to present and defend your convictions in the real world?
And has the group with which you ‘volunteer’ with ever made the threat that if they knew your true feelings that you would be out the door?
And, since it is a ‘volunteer’ position, what would be the real harm of your not having to deal with those of lesser intellectual abilities than you possess?
After all, you have presented your beliefs that those who hold beliefs other than yours to be intellectually lesser than yourself.
And, while you may pretend that atheists are discriminated against publicly (note the correct spelling for future reference), you offer no proof of this statement.
I see no headlines proclaiming “ATHEISTS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN GRAND JUNCTION!!!”
I see people claiming ‘discrimination’ with no facts to back up their assertions.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 11:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“I’m trying to dig through the logic here scott.”
That’s obviously difficult for you.
“Well, you have all these firmly held beliefs that all Christians are such bad people, yet you feel the need to hang out with them?”
The need for my services outweighs the distaste I have for their policies.
“And if they find out what your true feelings and beliefs of them are, they will refuse to associate with someone that really doesn’t have the same belief system that they have?”
Yes. It is a private organization and they have the right to discriminate against whoever they wish. Atheists are on that list of those who are not permitted to take part.
“Ok, now tell me one more time…
All this ‘courage’ of your convictions, but not enough ‘courage’ to present and defend your convictions in the real world?”
Once again, you misunderstand. Private organizations can discriminate against whoever they want. This one does. Were my beliefs public, I would have no legal recourse.
“And has the group with which you ‘volunteer’ with ever made the threat that if they knew your true feelings that you would be out the door?”
It is the policy of the organization – no atheists allowed.
“And, since it is a ‘volunteer’ position, what would be the real harm of your not having to deal with those of lesser intellectual abilities than you possess?”
Your mischaracterization aside, I have my reasons for wanting to participate that outweigh my personal feelings.
“After all, you have presented your beliefs that those who hold beliefs other than yours to be intellectually lesser than yourself.”
Please support this accusation. I have never done so – here or anywhere. Of course, you seem to feel that anyone who disagrees with you does this, so I don’t expect a response.
“And, while you may pretend that atheists are discriminated against publicly (note the correct spelling for future reference), you offer no proof of this statement.
Oh, the irony. Willis complaining that I didn’t support a claim. Not to mention correcting spelling. Classof52 must be rubbing off on you.
“I see no headlines proclaiming “ATHEISTS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST IN GRAND JUNCTION!!!””
Of course not. It’s publicly acceptable. You have seen the outcry over the city council prayer, haven’t you? They wouldn’t be saying those things if it were Jews or African-Americans complaining. But its atheists, so it’s okay.
“I see people claiming ‘discrimination’ with no facts to back up their assertions.”
Pot. Kettle. You show me where you explained why a written debate is unacceptable to creationists and we’ll talk. I asked first.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
scott…
” “Well, you have all these firmly held beliefs that all Christians are such bad people, yet you feel the need to hang out with them?”
The need for my services outweighs the distaste I have for their policies. ‘
Then I guess this makes you truly special doesn’t it?
If your services are so desperately needed, I’m sure they will make an exception in your case.
As it stands, you are volunteering under false pretenses, ie; lying to attain and maintain a position not normally open to you.
How dreadfully dishonest of you.
I betcher mommie is so proud.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Wow. Glad to see this thread is maintaining the decorum and dignity the subject deserves.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hi Crumudgeon
Missed ya. Even though we haven’t been doing much, just kind of hanging around, ya know, doing our part for the decorum. Anyway, it is good to see you back.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 12:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“Then I guess this makes you truly special doesn’t it?”
Probably shatters your idea of what atheists do. I wouldn’t call it special, though.
“If your services are so desperately needed, I’m sure they will make an exception in your case.”
No, I don’t think they would. They never have before. I don’t fool myself into thinking I’m irreplaceable, though.
“As it stands, you are volunteering under false pretenses, ie; lying to attain and maintain a position not normally open to you.”
Don’t ask, don’t tell. Besides, only you would see volunteering for the betterment of the community to be a bad thing.
“How dreadfully dishonest of you.
I betcher mommie is so proud.”
I’ll bet she prefer what I’m doing to me discriminating against someone for their beliefs. How does your mother feel about you defending such discrimination?
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks, A_P. Frankly, I think it’s a silly argument about a subject we’re ill equipped to understand. While the THEORY of evolution makes much more sense to me than the Biblical STORY of Creation, the very structure of the Universe (circles, spheres, balance, etc) would lead some to believe that there’s *some* kind of intelligence behind it. But that intelligence would be to a degree that our trying to understand it would be pointless as Paris Hilton taking the SAT’s.
But, the rest of y’all go on calling each other poopyheads. I’m sure Darwin and Jesus are proud.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hi CURMIE!!!!
good Lord it’s good to have yer smiling face back on the cereal box.
For the most part it’s just been the normal idle banter amongst friends.
Somehow, I do detect a perverse desire to check out miss hiltons score card.
uhhh..,
her SAT score card. nuthn’ else.
If a normal person looked at any of her other ’score cards’ they might catch something untweetable, like chirpies of something.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Let’s see, Paris Hilton. That would be like “dating the sixth fleet by proxy”
And from what see on TV, untweetable might not cover it, it might be unrecoverable.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
scott.
” I’ll bet she prefer what I’m doing to me discriminating against someone for their beliefs. How does your mother feel about you defending such discrimination? ‘
My mommy loved me until the day she died.
Her last request to me that I always remain true to myself, as well as my fellow members of society.
But, to a liberal, such as yourself, lying to others is such a good thing if it allows you to present your self as an honest, upstanding member of society.
All those convictions and needs to lie to hide them from the world.
You are discriminating against the Christians with your subterfuge scott.
Nearly all the users on this site would be shocked if someone would suggest that they do what you have admitted to doing.
If you will lie about this, what else have you lied about?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 2:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, it was a brief break from the personal attacks, anyway. Now, back to the same old, same old, huh?
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Apparently.
It just blows Willis’ mind that an atheist would do something altruistic. That just can’t happen in his world, so I must have some nefarious purpose.
What a paranoid world Willis must live in.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s because if you accept that an opponent has anything but self-serving, nefarious purposes, you might run the risk of possibly seeing any value whatsoever in their arguments. And that’s dangerous. If you keep them painted in one color (whatever the *bad* color may be), you can dismiss any argument they make.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
no scott,
I know quite a few people who do good, just because good needs to be done.
I’ve just never ran across anybody that can’t do good things and be honest about who they are.
I’m sure that you can find an outlet to do whatever it is you do as a volunteer for another organization that won’t ‘discriminate’, and I’m still not 100% certain that your services would be terminated.
After all, volunteers with special skills is alway a much better option that paying a professional, is it not?
Give them a shot at not discriminating.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 2:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
You don’t know the situation, you don’t know the organization, and you don’t know my reasons. You’re just shooting blindly trying to paint me as a villian since you can’t accept that someone like me, who you’ve branded a “liberal,” could do something like this.
And how about supporting your claim that you explained why a written debate is unacceptable? Post number? Or are yiou just going to keep ignoring it?
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Are we rubbing it in? Probably. Would we do it to your face. Damn right.
That having been said, I respect you admitting the truth. You could have made up a lie, that would probably would have worked pretty well, but by telling the truth, you absolve yourself of some of the lie.
Now, here is my problem, and it has nothing to do with you personally, but it does have to do with liberal. The so called liberals who post here have been playing holier than thou for a long time, pointing out everybody’s little mistakes. Shoving their education down our throats. Making us try to back up everything we say, instead of taking our word for it. If I say it, I believe it. That don’t make it the truth, but it does make it what I believe. You just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and your integrity just bit you in the butt. But buck up Son, by admitting what you did, you just climbed a whole lot higher in my opinion. Now I am not saying that you’d do to ride the river with, I’m just seeing the possibilities. You be true to yourself, and don’t worry a whole hell of a lot whether me or anyone else likes it. When you have lived your life, that’s all that will matter. I meant no offense to you personally, but I don’t apologize for pointing out the ebbs and tides of liberal values. That needed to be said. Although it is on one of the forums, I am putting the explanation here. There is no need for you to reply to this post, unless you think I’m wrong. You know and I know, and that is all that matters.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, your position is very much like the gay person who prefers not to talk about his sexual preference because of the condemnation of the “moral majority”. Yet such people lead productive lives right alongside heterosexuals. I don’t see WLJ and AP condemning the gay crowd for not coming out with their preferences. Atheists are pretty much in the same boat and suffer from the overt hostility of those supposed to be loving Christians (as we have seen in numerous letters to the editor these past two weeks). I find nothing at all reprehensible about your position even though I am not an atheist.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
gene,
the homosexual that chooses not to discuss his sexuality in public probably does not speak of a lot of private issues because it is not knowledge that belongs on the streets.
He/she probably considers his/her private life to be private between two individuals.
“coming out of the closet” is merely bragging to people who think their bedroom activities belong in the privacy of their bedroom.
There is a BIG difference.
Now, about the questions?
” Mr Fox, in all seriousness, because I truly do want to understand your position on this issue.
Vermont has a “free to carry’ law that states any law abiding adult may carry a weapon, concealed or not at any time.
Do you agree with this law?
Do you believe that a person has the right to protect and defend his family in his own home?
Do you believe that a person has the right to protect and defend himself outside his home?
Do you believe that politicians have the right to limit when and where a law abiding citizen may carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise?
I trust I will get honest, straightforward answers to these question.
Thank You in advance. “
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 6:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
american patriot,
What are you talking about? What lie are you referring to? I have not lied once since I started posting here. I’m glad whatever I did raised your opinion of me, but i really don’t know what it was that I did.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 7:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quoting Willis:
” “coming out of the closet” is merely bragging to people who think their bedroom activities belong in the privacy of their bedroom.”
That is just about the most homophobic load of crud I have ever read.
My uncle “came out” to his parents and siblings in the 1960s. It was agonizing but he and the one he loved needed to explain the nature of their relationship. They are still together today.
One of millions of such stories.
Shame on you Willis. I expected better, even from you. I am PO’d to the point of tears. That comment absolutely disgusted me.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 7:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” Shame on you Willis. I expected better, even from you. I am PO’d to the point of tears. That comment absolutely disgusted me. ”
What are you trying to say here ashhugger?
That hearing what other people do in their bedrooms really is an important thing for you to know?
After all, all they are doing by “coming out of the closet” is saying;
” HEY WORLD!!! lookee here what we can do!”
I knew, and still do know a goodly number of people who have an ‘alternate lifestyle’ and it has never bothered me, nor my knowledge of it bothered them.
But they have a thing about privacy and what they do, and with whom is nobody elses business.
But, you on the other hand, feel that everybody should know.
Why is that?
Are we going to view your coming out party in the near future?
Is your husband aware that you want to tell the world what the two of you do in private?
Would it bother you if he told his buddies what the two of you do together?
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I know I have completely changed the subject in the last post but holy cow.
Willis I was harsh but let me just ask you this. How is someone supposed to live in a committed relationship for over 40 years if they never “come out”? It would effectively be like lying to everyone close to them for their whole lives.
I am sorry you see it as ONLY being about what goes on between the sheets. “Bragging” about it at that. That is very, very sad.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Your confusion does not surprise me. It is exactly to the point. It is why, in a court of law, the oath given for sworn testimony includes the following: Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The reason the oath is written this way is because some people do not consider an omission a lie. Those individuals are quick to say, if the question is not asked, then I am not lying if I withhold the information. Other people rationalize what is a lie and what is not, not by the question asked, but rather by categorizing information as pertinent or irrelevant. The omission of irrelevant information, to these people, is not a lie. The omission of pertinent information is. The logic of the second group is that omission of information that would potentially, substantially change the outcome or Status Quo would be a lie. Still other people consider the omission of information that should or would be considered in making a decision as a lie. Still another group considers altering, omitting or adding any information which actually exists that should or would be considered in a decision making process, a lie. The point, Scott, is that what I consider a lie, you may not and visa verse. Whether you take one of the previous definitions or one of your own is greatly dependent on your upbringing, your own personal sense of right and wrong, your motives, your values or what is at stake.
There is, I believe a substantial difference between conservative and liberal definitions of a lie. Religious people have a phrase “A lie in the sight of God”. This infers that an all-knowing, all-seeing Deity will know if you omit, add or alter any facts that you know should be heard. This belief has a profound effect on those people. Still other people use concience, karma or the fear of being caught as factors in their definition of a lie. As a result, confusion abounds, as each individual uses their own definition. Whether yours was a lie of omission, by not telling the group that you volunteer with, that you did not share their beliefs, will be for you to decide by your own definition. But it is also the priviledge of others to view your action, in this case your omission, in the light of their own definitions. This generally results in a did not, did too conversation, and the quoting of scripture, “judge not, lest ye be judged”. The real life necessity of having to judge the truthfullness of others is not in contradiction with this scripture. The scripture simply puts the burden of the truthfulness of judgment upon he who would judge. I am hopeful that you do not prepresume by my mention of scripture that I am a proponent of that particular value system. I am hopeful that you do not see my statement as preaching to you. I am not. I am simply saying that I view your omission as a lie. What weight you place on my judgment is entirly up to you.
These differences in definition account for the difference between myself and Class of 52 as to what we consider a lie.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis: Why don’t you specifically address the example of my uncles if you are going to be so rude anyway?
You think that in telling people close to them that they were in love, they graphically explained their sex lives in the process? Nothing could be farther from the truth.
What were they supposed to do their whole lives, pretend they were best pals and roomies? Is that what you want homosexuals to do, lie to everyone their whole lives?
I can sure understand why some do. Because of people like you.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Excuse me, nothing could be FURTHER from the truth.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Okay, now I see.
Yes, it could be considered a lie of omission. I admit that, but in the capacity I am in, I have not been required to go on record stating my beliefs. I was once asked to take a position where I would have to do so and I refused that position. There are those in the organization who are aware of my beliefs and feel that my contributions outweigh the “problem” of my beliefs, as long as I am willing to continue. It is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils, and I have made my choice.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis: When you go to a wedding between a man and a woman is that all you think about, what they do in their bedroom?
Because by your logic it must not be about declaring their love and commitment to friends and family. No it must be about LOOKEE HERE, see what we can do!
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ashhugger, you haven’t even begun to see the ‘rude side’ of me yet.
as I mentioned, I have friends who live ‘alternative lifestyles’ and are happy.
Some have family that are aware, others do not.
They do not believe that everybody needs to know why they live in the manner they do.
If your ‘uncles’ had a problem with THEIR families, then that’s between them and their families.
I could care less.
It’s different strokes for different folks.
I’m also acquainted with the more radical, militant type, and they catch a lot of grief due to the fact that they feel that we owe them something.
Here’s a flash for you ashhugger, we don’t owe them anything, not even a good nights sleep.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:22 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
” Yes, it could be considered a lie of omission. I admit that, but in the capacity I am in, I have not been required to go on record stating my beliefs. I was once asked to take a position where I would have to do so and I refused that position. There are those in the organization who are aware of my beliefs and feel that my contributions outweigh the “problem” of my beliefs, as long as I am willing to continue. It is a case of choosing the lesser of two evils, and I have made my choice. ”
So it’s just a case of ‘the ends justify the means’ then?
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:24 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
” ashhugger
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm PM This User Report this comment
Willis: When you go to a wedding between a man and a woman is that all you think about, what they do in their bedroom?
Because by your logic it must not be about declaring their love and commitment to friends and family. No it must be about LOOKEE HERE, see what we can do! ‘
You are aware that you need some serious professional help aren’t you?
Or maybe you’re bucking for a position in the BBB?
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger - if you are expecting personal honesty (people who are first honest with themselves) on these boards, you may not find it in the likes of those who cannot honestly look at themselves, ask what they truly believe, and why. One has to remember that they can’t. One sees it in an above post where some say that “coming out” is only “showing off.”
Really? So the straight types hang their “conquests” out for all to see, and “brag” about it, for men that is a sign of machismo, for women it is a mark of conquest. However, ask them and they will deny it, even while doing it. Personally, I happen to believe that another’s life is her or his personal life, and if that is “sexual life” that is none of my business either. Apparently the more “virtuous” one’s amongst us believe it is theirs, and simply cannot handle being told to mind their own business.
Some people apparently have too much time on their hands if they have enough to stick their noses into other people’s business, and gossiping.
If one thinks about it sex, as a subject of discussion, is boring and overrated. Almost every other species of the animal kingdom is involved in it, but it is only human beings, the supposedly “superior” being, that obsess about it. Apparently some of our more prudish ones, men and women alike, are titilated by it.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
“So it’s just a case of ‘the ends justify the means’ then?”
Everything is a case of deciding if the ends justify the means. Deciding whether or not to get up and get a beer is determining if the ends justify the means. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. Seldom are things black and white, like conservatives so often seem to think.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I feel like coming over to your house and just shaking your hand, but alas that isn’t possible. I am somewhat limited by the range of my ankle bracelet, which is totally frustrating. I wanted to apply for a job in the DA’s office in Glenwood, not too long ago, but nooooo, that was beyond my ankle bracelet perimeter. See what I mean.:)
Holy mackerel, Scott, you just might do to ride the river with. Regardless of your beliefs, I am sure that your contributions would outweigh any differences you may have with that group or any other group. I keep getting the strangest idea that you and I could be friends, irregardless of the fact that I have been pronounced a fascist, and may have one or two other small idiosyncrases.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quoting Willis:
“ashhugger, you haven’t even begun to see the ‘rude side’ of me yet.”
Bring it on, then. Make my day. If you can get any ruder we might have to call Guinness.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres, thanks for your post (#227). If not for this I may have let loose a series of personal insults and obscenities on someone that would not only make the sailors blush but would surely have gotten me kicked off the forum.
Thank you again for helping me put this into perspective. Everything you said was right on.
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Correction, post 237 is the one I am thinking RLaitres for. Dang!
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 9:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
american patriot,
Thank you. Seriously, thank you. That means a lot to me.
And don’t worry about idiosyncrasies. They make life interesting!
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 7:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
” ashhugger
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 pm PM This User Report this comment
RLaitres, thanks for your post (#227). If not for this I may have let loose a series of personal insults and obscenities on someone that would not only make the sailors blush but would surely have gotten me kicked off the forum. ”
” ashhugger
Posted June 2nd, 2008 at 8:53 pm PM This User Report this comment
Bring it on, then. Make my day. If you can get any ruder we might have to call Guinness ”
Well, sweetie, you have nothing to fear but fear itself.
So, whenever you feel a little froggy, go ahead and jump.
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 7:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hey, way to go, Scott & A_P!
Well, it took 243 posts, but we see that regardless of their theory of their own origins, the Conservative and the Liberal are both HUMAN BEINGS, and can recognize each other as such, when properly motivated. Just imagine the things we could get done in this country if both sides of the political aisle could do that. But they can’t, because neither side is as brave or intellectually honest as these two gentlemen are.
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 8:05 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon,
On behalf of Scott and myself, thank you for your kind words.
R E S P E C T! Given and returned. It’s contagious, but respect is not a wind-born virus, and therefore it spreads only by contact.
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 8:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, I admit you almost had the satisfaction of making me completely lose my temper. Congratulations … almost. After all your posts are designed to hurt and anger as much as possible (though the real effect is usually bewilderment).
I see that many people on this forum have learned to ignore you. Can’t believe it took me so long to realize this is the only reasonable strategy.
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 8:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well asshugger, in the interest of fairness and equality for all current members and those who would wish to become members of the BBB, I must ask the following questions.
Vermont has a “free to carry” law that states any law abiding adult may carry a weapon, concealed or not at any time.
Do you agree with this law?
Do you believe that a person has the right to protect and defend his family in his own home?
Do you believe that a person has the right to protect and defend himself outside his home?
Do you believe that politicians have the right to limit when and where a law abiding citizen may carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise?
I trust I will get honest, straightforward answers to these question.
Thank You in advance.
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 8:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
My bad ashhugger.
My misspelling of your handle was purely unintentional and I hereby retract the typo and replace it with “ashhugger”
Had there been an ‘edit’ button, I would have corrected it when noticed.
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 8:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks Willis, I certainly believe you that the misspelling of my handle was unintentional.
The rest of course I must ignore.
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 8:27 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ashhugger, does this mean the you also, are going to decline to answer the questions I presented?
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually I don’t have a problem with these questions, Willis. I will answer them then I will commence to ignore you.
OK then.
“Vermont has a “free to carry” law that states any law abiding adult may carry a weapon, concealed or not at any time. Do you agree with this law?”
Yes.
“Do you believe that a person has the right to protect and defend his family in his own home?”
Yes, though some laws wrongfully infringe on this right.
“Do you believe that a person has the right to protect and defend himself outside his home?”
Same as above.
Do you believe that politicians have the right to limit when and where a law abiding citizen may carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise?
I don’t believe politicians have the right to limit the rights of citizens. However I do not have a problem with our governing bodies establishing very limited bans on weapons in a small number of places for public safety: Namely in courthouses, in K-12 schools, and on commercial airlines.
I do take serious note of the qualification, “law aiding.” It is tempting to add “of sound mind” thinking of the Virginia Tech slaughter, but I don’t trust government to decide what a sound mind is.
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 9:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
” I do take serious note of the qualification, “law aiding.” It is tempting to add “of sound mind” thinking of the Virginia Tech slaughter, but I don’t trust government to decide what a sound mind is. ”
Shortly before the above named slaughter, the school administration declared that no weapons would be allowed on the campus regardless of any pre-existing concealed carry permits.
By doing this, they specifically denied numerous student with concealed carry permits from the ability to stop the nutcase.
In essence, the administration created the climate for mass murder on their campus.
But, they are bureaucrats, and as such, cannot be held responsible for directly setting the stage for the murders.
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well sit me down and bring me some chips. I actually agree with Willis (post 253).
Though I don’t hold anyone responsible but the murderer, I do agree the outcome could have been better had law abiding students and faculty been allowed to carry weapons.
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 9:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Quite to the astonishment of everyone, we have an agreement between Willis and Ashhugger. Is a whole new era of civility at hand? It is a beginning, isn’t it. I am probably more guilty than either party mentioned at retaliatory mud-slinging, (See Class of 52), but when I get respect, I give it. Like I said, it is a beginning.
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 9:54 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Actually, Ashhugger is a very nice person. She just gets swayed sometimes.
To gene, I am either a giant conspiracy against him, or his “boogeyman” that he has feared since the day he woke up in college and discovered his parent had lied to, and mistreated him from birth by filling his head with the mysticism and mythology of Christianity.
Now ashhugger, about the guns on airplanes.
If every law abiding passenger boarding a plane were to be issued a loaded handgun, there would never be another skyjacking.
Posted June 3rd, 2008 at 10:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis, back at ya about the nice person who just gets swayed thing
Now about the guns on airplanes, yours is a good theory but the potential for accidents is too great. I could see some crews being endangered by mobs of angry passengers, or some doofus accidentally discharging his gun or letting a child get ahold of it, etc. It is too fragile of an environment to let every Tom, Dick, and Harry on with a gun.
I do agree with having trained crew members armed, however.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.