|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 12/05/2004 : 22:36:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I do. However, this doesn't actually give any basis for evidence. I might not have read right and we might have influenced each other in what we think. Unfortunately, we can't go back. The debate is over, Jimi won't post, we won, hooray and let's go on to the next topic.
First, thanks for the support. But I disagree, we can't just move on. We (those who have posted in this topic) believe that tkster make fatal flaws in setting up the rules for the debate. Whether these were on purpose or not has not been claimed, but lets just say I'm fairly sure the idea has crossed our minds (or at least mine).
tkster, on the other hand, still claims that the rules are fair. This is what the dispute is over.
How he can claim this, I have no idea. There was a large loop hole in the rules, one which jimi has just used. How this loop hole is not obvious is unknown to me. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9696 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2004 : 00:41:39 [Permalink]
|
Thank you tkster, for officially bringing a conclusion to the debate.
It's the first step toward closure in these matters, and I think the most important one.
Unfortunately, there are no longer original copies of the opening post of the debate-thread at independent sources as far as I know. I was naive enough to think it wasn't needed. Changing words from "Pending" to "Done" four times still leaves three edits of the post, if you don't take into account that rules could have changed at the same time as the "Pending" statements. The edit notice at the bottom of the post does not say how many chars has been edited so, without a copy of the original, no one knows besides tkster, who's honesty is at question.
I don't see how anything more constructive can be said at this point. It's turning out to be a pissing contest, and though I usually don't back down from one, this is getting boring.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2004 : 11:25:33 [Permalink]
|
The amount of times you edit a topic means nothing. When the topic was originally posted it did not mention the names of the debators and there was a debate as to who was going to do what, and I remember removing all those posts. Also I remember the first post did not include the time frame and that was later added. I changed fonts, and bolded words and correct spelling errors. In total I should actually have around 10-12 edits, and yet only 7.
Let me give you an example of what I am talking about in another topic on this forum, in this topic I update the post everytime a member joins.
Now do this math: There are 9 members and yet it has been edited 30 times. Sometimes the math doesn't work out. Sometimes people make spelling errors or decide to bold a statement, and it happens that way.
The time frame was the second edit, then I edited to add Jimi's name, and then to add tksgurl name - who was originally the debator for evolution, but later edited for Peptide. After that it was DONE, DONE, DONE, and PENDING.
tk |
| Edited by - tkster on 12/06/2004 11:26:57 |
|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2004 : 14:57:32 [Permalink]
|
For the record, I was under the impression that there was a time limit on rebuttals. Early on, the pending rules stated one week between intros and rebuttals. If indeed those rules were changed I was not aware of it.
More importantly, jimi was going against the very spirit of the debate. The reason evo vs creo was put into a formal debate forum was that everyone was talking past each other. The reason for the debate was for evolutionists to "finally" answer all of those slam dunk creationist arguments. Everyone was claiming that they were "pwning" evolutionists left and right. What happened when they, themselves, had to face the music? Jimi hides behind a "no time limit" rebuttal.
Next, all evo creo debates were suspended since tkster wanted one argument at a time. This was de facto censorship which allowed kevkev and cohorts to take pot shots at evolutionists and then never having to claim responsibility for the reactions by claiming "but the debates not over".
I would like to thank tk for finally ending the debate. I would much rather seen jimi try and tackle the evidence, but you take what you can get. Is there going to be a creationist/evolution section? More formal debates? Just as a sidenote, I am still curious about tksgurl's ccdi9 thing. She became pretty illusive when I wanted to learn about the details, especially when it became obvious that she was confusing punctuated equilibrium with saltation. |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2004 : 15:16:44 [Permalink]
|
Good point Peptide, now the TK doesn't feel that he has to defend creationism at all cost or lose his faith, maybe we could finally get an answer about ccdi9.
Well... enlighten us.
Thanks
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Peptide
Skeptic Friend
USA
69 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2004 : 16:05:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Good point Peptide, now the TK doesn't feel that he has to defend creationism at all cost or lose his faith, maybe we could finally get an answer about ccdi9.
Well... enlighten us.
Thanks
Actually, I know everything about it but I am not about to lower myself to your level and try and explain it. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2004 : 16:50:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peptide
For the record, I was under the impression that there was a time limit on rebuttals. Early on, the pending rules stated one week between intros and rebuttals. If indeed those rules were changed I was not aware of it.
It was there and it was obvious.
quote:
More importantly, jimi was going against the very spirit of the debate. The reason evo vs creo was put into a formal debate forum was that everyone was talking past each other. The reason for the debate was for evolutionists to "finally" answer all of those slam dunk creationist arguments. Everyone was claiming that they were "pwning" evolutionists left and right. What happened when they, themselves, had to face the music? Jimi hides behind a "no time limit" rebuttal.
JD is not hiding, JD doesn't give a rip. He OBVIOUSLY never did, look at his first post. The fact that you don't get that, says something very strong.
quote:
Next, all evo creo debates were suspended since tkster wanted one argument at a time. This was de facto censorship which allowed kevkev and cohorts to take pot shots at evolutionists and then never having to claim responsibility for the reactions by claiming "but the debates not over".
No formal debates was a clever idea. I have a thought on that for the future, for now though, I don't see a point. But after reading CF and Theology webs, the mess of people post whoring is just ridiculous. I like isolating the issues.
quote:
I would like to thank tk for finally ending the debate. I would much rather seen jimi try and tackle the evidence, but you take what you can get. Is there going to be a creationist/evolution section? More formal debates? Just as a sidenote, I am still curious about tksgurl's ccdi9 thing. She became pretty illusive when I wanted to learn about the details, especially when it became obvious that she was confusing punctuated equilibrium with saltation.
I have no clue about ccdi9 - I am not biochemist, and Hannah's idea along with Courtney's idea of PE is directly proportional to Gould's final book about the structure of evolutionary theory.
tk |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2004 : 17:09:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
peptide:
More importantly, jimi was going against the very spirit of the debate.
Jimi broke the rules of the debate by including an attack on evolution in his opening arguments. Strictly speaking, the debate should have been over at that point.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
tkster
Skeptic Friend
USA
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2004 : 17:12:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
quote:
peptide:
More importantly, jimi was going against the very spirit of the debate.
Jimi broke the rules of the debate by including an attack on evolution in his opening arguments. Strictly speaking, the debate should have been over at that point.
JD's post wasn't even half ass. Even I told him that, the guy didn't do anything but write down a few things and that was it. It was obvious after his post that his mind was on other things and he wasn't interested in debating anymore. The topic could have been locked at that, someone with that poor of arguments might as well not even post.
tk |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
