|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 10/23/2004 : 20:55:46 [Permalink]
|
For the record, here is jimi's first post to the debate:Introduction
First of all, I’d like to start by thanking Peptide for agreeing to debate this controversial issue, and to the site administrator tkster for allowing us to debate here at his forum. I’ll try to make this in “layman” terms so everyone can easily read it.
Second, I’d like everyone to know the creationist stance: We are not trying to get creation in schools. We are not trying to get evolution out of schools (not necessarily). We want science to be taught in science class!
Now, what is science? Science is systematized knowledge derived from observation, or study, etc. (Webster’s dictionary). Notice how science comes from things that we observe and not things that we assume (I’ll get into this later). Please keep this in mind as we go about in this debate.
1. History of Mankind
If you look back in history, you will find that mankind only has records that go back about 5-6,000 years [using things OTHER than the Bible and includes “accurate” historical facts #8211; (i.e., no myths or legends)]. Why do evolutionists then claim that humans came about 3 million years ago? Also, if all we’ve ever known to have existed is 5-6,000 years, then how can anyone scientifically claim that the earth is older than this? Several “calendars” of ancient civilizations say that we are in the year around 4500, and some 5700. (not exact dates) Why don’t we have any ancient calendars that date older than this?
The point: We have about 6,000 years of human history that we know. From what we know, we should conclude that the earth is close to 6,000 years old.
2. Helium in the atmosphere
This one might take a little more time to explain, but I’ll try to make it brief and easy to understand. One of the dating methods that evolutionists use is called Uranium-Lead dating. In the process of Uranium decaying to lead, Helium is given off. Helium cannot escape the earth’s atmosphere and is therefore present from the “beginning of time”. If you measure the amount of Helium in the atmosphere, it is MUCH less than what would be expected of a billion year old earth.
3. Faulty Assumption & Uniformitarianism
Uniformitarianism states that (layman terms  ) “the way things happen now, is they way they’ve always happened.” This is the very foundation of gradualistic evolution. This is where the old ages of the earth come from. Every argument that the evolutionist uses to try and prove an old earth is based on this very faulty assumption. There are several obvious reasons why uniformitarianism is a faulty assumption:
A. We know and can observe things changing in the environment today.
B. There is no way to know if things have been constant from the time the world began until the time that humans came about.
C. Every argument based upon uniformitarianism has been shown to be flawed to due the amount of outside interference (i.e. it wasn’t constant.)
If every argument used to support an old earth is based upon this very faulty assumption, then it is not scientific. Uniformitarianism is not only something that can’t be proven correct, but it has also been proven to be wrong.
Conclusion
In closing, I’d like to say that evolution does not fit as part of science because it does not fit the definition of science. Also, evolution has not stood the test of time. What I mean is that every argument that the evolutionists use is a new argument. This is because all of their old arguments have been proven wrong or faulty. If evolution really was true we would have found out a long time ago. Nearly all of creation arguments have stood the test of time. Most of them could still be used today.
Finally, the skeptic’s creed says that the simplest explanation is usually right. Which is simpler? All the dogs in the world coming from a rock 4.6 billion years ago? Or all the dogs in the world coming from two dogs? Also, which one is scientific? Dogs coming from rocks? Or dogs coming from dogs? The conclusion can be made that not only is creation more of a skeptical solution, but it is also more scientific.
(all sources can be found at www.drdino.com) |
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 |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2004 : 21:50:18 [Permalink]
|
Interesting. I go back to read the rules of the debate, and I find this:The Skeptic Times owns the rights to your posts and all of it will be posted on the Skeptic Times website after it is finished. So it seems that tkster's "I own this stuff" attitude goes beyond this forum. Of course, the post of the rules of the current debate also says,Last edited by tkster on Fri Oct 15, 2004 9:46 pm; edited 4 times in total and since Peptide's first post was some 54 minutes earlier, it seems that tkster may not be above changing the rules after the debate has begun in earnest.
Man, this is weird. tkster's "rules for the debate folder" now state that creation-vs-evolution will not be debated there, yet that's where the debate is taking place. The post is dated July 28th, and has no "edited by" note, yet the "Formal Debates" folder is mentioned, and his rules post in there is dated October 18th.
On another note, I'm dying to know what Peptide is thinking about jimi's post... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2004 : 23:01:16 [Permalink]
|
Oh, and before I forget: Dr. Mabuse nailed it.
If you remember, Ricky, the "rules" in the debate folder used to go to at least 9. Now, there are only five. Go figure.
Oh, I found something even worse than the fact that jimi presented no pro-creation arguments. "Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 8:52 pm" is at the start of Peptide's debate post. "Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:20 am" is at the top of jimi's. jimi, therefore, missed the one-week deadline by either 20 minutes or by 3 hours and 28 minutes, depending on how a person counts "1 week."
So it would seem that tkster is allowing jimi to disobey the rules of the debate in at least three ways:- He posted too late,
- he posted no arguments specifically for creation, and
- he posted a clear rebuttal to evolution in his introduction.
Ricky wrote:quote:
Oh, and another thing to note is that tk is constantly patrolling the forums over here, he found my mistake which I said he was voting for Kerry and im'ed me to correct me. So I'm fairly sure he is reading this (hi tk  ). So that he is not aware of the things we comment here is not true.
Actually, I assumed that tkster read these SFN threads at least occasionally. I've been sorta counting on it. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2004 : 23:08:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Oh, and before I forget: Dr. Mabuse nailed it.
Mab, the psychic skeptic. Nice premonition, keep 'em coming.
quote:
1. He posted too late,
2. he posted no arguments specifically for creation, and
3. he posted a clear rebuttal to evolution in his introduction.
Should these be brought up in the rebuttal or possibly another topic over there? I think they should be the introduction to the rebuttal, the only negative aspect of this would be it actually takes the focus a bit away from the negating of bad science.
Edit:
quote:
Now, what is science? Science is systematized knowledge derived from observation, or study, etc. (Webster's dictionary).
Does anyone have a Webster's dictionary? I couldn't find anything online besides the Merriam-Webster, and this didn't quite have the same definition. I'm curious on what the "etc" is, and how close this is to the actual definition found there. |
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 |
| Edited by - Ricky on 10/23/2004 23:12:13 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/23/2004 : 23:45:38 [Permalink]
|
Ricky wrote:quote:
Should these be brought up in the rebuttal or possibly another topic over there? I think they should be the introduction to the rebuttal, the only negative aspect of this would be it actually takes the focus a bit away from the negating of bad science.
At best, they should be a sort of extended footnote to the rebuttal, as in "please note that the above rebuttal has failed - until this moment - to mention jimi's violation of the rules of the debate. That he violated the rules should only be of importance to the person moderating the debate, it has no bearing on whether or not the arguments he brought to the virtual table are correct."
And let's look more closely, for a moment, at tkster's rule post, in which he says,There will be no more "pretending you haven't received an answer"... Well, the only opportunity for answers to questions are in the rebuttals, and none have been made yet. The criticisms of jimi's post aren't based upon this....or getting upset when you break your own rules... No, we're pointing out that jimi is breaking tkster's rules....or going off topic. It's questionable whether or not jimi has done so. Peptide sure didn't.You will be forced on this one. The question here is: "forced by whom?" tkster states earlier in the rules post, "I am a full time employee and college student and I don't have time to make sure you guys are obeying the rules," and apparently he really means it. He cannot ever make sure people are following the rules, even when there are only two posts, about a week apart, that he's specifically obligated to check for rules violations, because he is moderating the debate.
In my opinion, if tkster doesn't have the time to make sure his own moderators are following his rules (and jimi is one of his moderators), then he is completely incompetent to be running a web forum which intends to have any level of civility above "barroom brawl." He may argue that he's gotta trust somebody, but if - as he said to Kil - he's had to warn at least one of his moderators several times about his behaviour, and this latest example of rule-flaunting from jimi, then perhaps they simply aren't trustworthy and the whole thing ought to be shut down until he finds good people, or finds the time to do things correctly all by himself.
Actually, looking at their forum index again, I find that jimi and kevkev are the only moderators other than tkster, and they're both busy breaking tkster's rules in one way or another. jimi in the debate (at least), and kevkev happily and freely flaming people.
But I'm drifting way off-topic. Sorry.quote:
Does anyone have a Webster's dictionary? I couldn't find anything online besides the Merriam-Webster, and this didn't quite have the same definition. I'm curious on what the "etc" is, and how close this is to the actual definition found there.
Yeah, it was a poor reference on jimi's part. I have here Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, 2nd college edition, published in 1979. The definition of 'science' found there states (any typos mine),2. systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied Evolution fits this definition just fine, but jimi would have you ignore the study and experimentation parts, and changes 'and' to 'or'. And he goes on to say that science cannot assume anything, when the first assumption of every observation is that those observations are correct. jimi understands precisely none of this, and instead abuses the terms in an attempt to discredit one thing he doesn't like, and promote something else he does like. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 00:27:13 [Permalink]
|
Oh, yeah... Over in this thread, tkster said:I know JD personally, he is honest despite what you may think. Well, the three unanswered rules violations (at least) in the current debate really call into question tkster's ability to judge honesty. And then later in the thread (but before jimi's first debate post), he says,Since the trolls have proven time and time again they can't respect the rules, they will be forced to be in a formal setting. Yet we've shown, undeniably, that jimi has no respect for those rules, either. jimi is disrespectful of the rules, and also a moderator and personal friend of tkster. No debate in which jimi participates with tkster as debate overseer can ever be considered "fair" when these flagrant violations exist.
Edited to add: one should note that River spent a good amount of time in the above-linked thread attempting to get a question about how a debate rule would be enforced. In my opinion - though apparently not River's - the question was never answered satisfactorally. But now, with jimi's post about a day old, we can see that the real answer is that the rules simply will not be enforced, at least not in any sort of punctual manner, on the pro-creationist side.
Also to add, according to the "Rules of the Debate Forum,"3. Sources must be documented properly jimi has failed to do this, miserably. Waving at Hovind's site and claiming "it's all over there" is not a "proper" reference in anyone's book, and neither is "Webster's dictionary," since there are many versions and printings of Webster's dictionaries.
So that's four rule violations by jimi, now. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 01:00:19 [Permalink]
|
Well, if I were running such a debate, it would have a companion thread which would begin with the debate moderator and participants discussing the rules, and publicly agreeing to them. The companion thread would then be opened up to comments by anyone about any possible rules violations during the actual debate, with a resolution of each violation publicly agreed to by the participants and moderator.
One of the rules, in my opinion, would have to be that one participant can waive any/all violations by the other, if he/she so chooses, including waiver of time-limit rules (in other words, Peptide could say, "oh, I'm not worried about jimi being 20 minutes late - no big deal"). With these basic groundrules in effect, forcing a completely-transparent solution to any problems which might arise, I don't see how the debate could be called "unfair" unless one side chooses to ignore or waive violations during the debate, only to complain about those same violations afterwards. But that, in itself, is an obviously unfair tactic which won't generate any sympathy whatsoever.
It'd be an interesting exercise to host a debate here, but I bet it'd be tough to find a creationist who'd show up. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 01:07:17 [Permalink]
|
Crap, I've gotta stop looking at SkepticTimes threads. Over here, jimi said,No offense to anybody, but what is so hard about obeying a couple of rules? Well, jimi, that's a damn good question...
Hypocrites: can't stand 'em.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
mountain_hare
New Member
13 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 04:43:27 [Permalink]
|
Wow, Peptide made a great opening post! Jimi's opening post was laughable.
In case peptide is interested, I started a thread about it at Internet Infidels, another place where skeptics/freethinkers hang out. I hope I don't upset the mod's by posting a link to another forum, I'm just hoping that maybe the link will help out Peptide. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=102735
Anyway, the forum Peptide is debating on is a hole. Just looking at the TITLE of the thread highlights the bias of the moderators. "Creation vs. EvolutionISM (emphasis mine)". What are the mod's trying to imply, that evolution is a religion?
Why do I have a funny feeling that Peptide's posts will be 'edited' afterwards?
Just to make your blood boil, here is a post by tk from the Skeptic Times forum...
http://skeptictimes.golivewire.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=396
quote:
Many of the following things were happening:
1. Evolutionists were not listening to answers or pretending that they didn't receive an answer.
2. Evolutionists would use appeals to ignorance, like "I don't understand" even though it was pretty clear.
3. Evolutionists broke quite a few rules; when Kevin asked not to debate they did so anyway, and ignored what Kevin asked.
4. Evolutionists complained about their topics getting off, but then turned around and did it themselves.
5. Evolutionists began starting way too many topics trying to "overwhelm" their opponents. This is a typical tactic, and it won't work here. Stick with one topic at a time.
It was out of control, so I realize that when things do return things are going to change. They will not be allowed to make "troll" remarks.
|
"This may sound really off the wall, but listen to me. You've got to believe me. I've not gone crazy, and I'm not fooling around. At first I thought I was losing my mind. But now I know I'm not. It's not me. The scientific community. It's being invaded by Creationism. Someone's ignorant delusions come to life. Little by little, the
invasion is spreading. Trying to swallow up everything in ignorance."
The words of Dr. Harry to the disbelieving scientific community, who were amazed that such idiotic ideals as "Creationism" would ever be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 05:45:30 [Permalink]
|
Welcome mountain_hare!
All too true. If you take their comments seriously, you're doomed.
Until they changed the font, I was a regular at II under the nom de guerre of Duvenoy. It's a good set of boards -- lots of knowledgable people.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2004 : 06:08:59 [Permalink]
|
Dave/Ricky:
I wouldn't worry too much about how much jimi is / is not following the rules. His first post in the debate was so pathetic (pathetic even standing on it's own merits, even more so compared to Peptide's) that being a little late or not actually doing what was asked is beside the point. It will be interesting, though, when its all over, to see how they justify declaring jimi the winner (my prediction) or at least declaring a draw. That should be a laugh riot. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
