• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Formal Debate Invitation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Asimov
  • Start date Start date
A

Asimov

Guest
Blueeyeliner,

In light of recent insults hurled at each other, by everyone and to everyone, I issue a formal apology. I do hope you accept the apology, and I hope you also issue an apology to everyone for your posts. The sticky on the top of the this forum says "be kind to everyone", which includes not insulting people or their "beliefs" and ideas.

As a result, I issue a formal debate to you.

This debate will be an exchange of posts, point by point.

In this debate we will be discussing the Theory of Evolution as it is defined by science. That is "The change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time". Whether you like it or not, this is the definition of evolution.

In the debate, I want you to start off by posting one (1) issue you have with evolution. In this first post, you will first state your issue with the one (1) aspect of evolution you have, then write a single paragraph illustrating why you think this one (1) aspect of evolution is wrong. I will then post a one paragraph rebuttal to your post.

We will each get two posts per point. No more, no less.

Restrictions on your points: We are not discussing whether or not evolution is a religion. Any statements about evolution being a religion or not will result in the close of this debate and you will lose it.

No ad homs against each other. You will not call me a heathen, nor will you make reference to my ancestry in an insulting manner. This is a formal debate, and you will be respectful. Any comments I deem insulting will result in loss of the debate.

We are not discussing God in this debate. You may not use Scripture in this debate. We are discussing science.

Any and all paragraphs must include a minimum of one reference in SUPPORT of your paragraph. Plagiarism and no paragraphs will result in loss of the debate.


This goes for both of us.


Accept?
 
If blueeyeliner does not accept, I will debate with anyone, the rules still apply, and my apology stands for anyone who feels affronted by anything I've said.
 
wow....no one accepts...

no one apologizes...nothing?
 
I'm on your side about evolution , and have nothing to apoligize to you specifically about, but I am sorry for the mean things I have said to various YECs, specifically blueeyeliner. I need to work at not venting my frustration in a meanspirited way, and will try to be more kind in the future.

I'd be extremely interested in seeing such a debate. Since this Blue won't do it with you, I suggest asking Blue Lighting, who has always impressed me as being an extremely knowledgeable and logical thinking YEC.
 
While I tend towards sarcasm, I also apologize if any of my comments were taken badly.

These are certainly interesting topics to discuss. I think the reason why most "non-believers" are here is because it disgusts us to see science preverted and "strawmanned".

I look forward to enjoying the show on this thread.....should it ever start.
 
I retract any ad hominems I may have used as basis for arguments. And apologize for any offence caused by any party.
 
That's an interesting proposal, and its one that only someone with a pretty decent understanding of science should accept.

I can accept that challenge, but there are some things that you need to understand before we can move ahead. First, I disagree with your defining of the Theory of Evolution as I accept that definition but still do not accept ToE. Here's the reason: I accept that genetic variation and evolution occur within a species (microevolution), but I do not accept that the variation within the species can become so great that a new species has been created (macroevolution). Greatly compounding the issue is that I understand our current system of categorizing organisms to be flawed and so I often do not agree with the different species that we have created (for example, I don't agree that dog and wolf should be in different species).

I would enjoy to debate you though, and it would be the first time in a long time that I had gotten that chance. I'm going to be extremely busy next week, but I think I could still manage some time for this. Let me know if you are interested, even given the very unusual (although I feel correct) criticisms I am going to make - such as what I have written above.

Later,

BL
 
I too apologise for any percieved meaness directed towards blueyeliner.

Let the debate begin!


:smt014
 
Blue-Lightening said:
Greatly compounding the issue is that I understand our current system of categorizing organisms to be flawed and so I often do not agree with the different species that we have created (for example, I don't agree that dog and wolf should be in different species).

Taxonomy is subjective, to a degree.

Would you accept the working definition of "species" and two organisms generally able to produce viable offspring?

Thus, the wolf and the dog are the same species, while a horse and a donkey are not, nor a chimp and a human.
 
Would you accept the working definition of "species" and two organisms generally able to produce viable offspring?

I think I would define "species" if it were up to me as any organisms whose populations are genetically connected through reproductive ability directly or indirectly.

Thus, the wolf and the dog are the same species, while a horse and a donkey are not, nor a chimp and a human.

If I were the one determining species, the wolf and dog would be in the same species (as would the coyote and possibly the fox), the horse and donkey would also be in the same species (they are able to reproduce together even though their young are sterile), but the chimp and human would be in separate species as they have no reproductive connection, either directly or indirectly (such as you might find in animals that cannot reproduce jointly but can both reproduce with another "linking" animal).

BTW, if we are to do this debate, please create a thread that only I and the challenger can contribute to. But I am enjoying this one also.

BL
 
I guess I had better get in on the act. Sorry if I ever insulted or was sharp tongued with anyone, particularly Blueeyeliner.

Now let the debates begin! :)
 
Blue-Lightning said:
That's an interesting proposal, and its one that only someone with a pretty decent understanding of science should accept.


Yes, and you seem to have a pretty decent understanding.

I'm scared now. :-)


I can accept that challenge, but there are some things that you need to understand before we can move ahead. First, I disagree with your defining of the Theory of Evolution as I accept that definition but still do not accept ToE.

Nevertheless, that is the definition of what evolution is. The Theory itself uses that mechanism to explain the past.


Here's the reason: I accept that genetic variation and evolution occur within a species (microevolution), but I do not accept that the variation within the species can become so great that a new species has been created (macroevolution). Greatly compounding the issue is that I understand our current system of categorizing organisms to be flawed and so I often do not agree with the different species that we have created (for example, I don't agree that dog and wolf should be in different species).

You're right, classification is slightly flawed, in classifications are not straight cut line that separates animals. It's a fuzzy line, where classification is difficult.

Such as the cat family. In the cat family, there are 3 main subfamilies. In these subfamilies are different genus, and then species and possible subspecies...Not to mention there are ~3 million known species.

Couple that to the fact that we've only been classifying for a few hundred years.

You try classifying all 30,000 species of beetle. :D

I like to stick with the accepted scientific definition of a species; that is a population of organisms incabable of breeding with another population of organisms, due to sexual differences, or geography.



However, I don't wish to explain too much, because this could be used as part of your argument against evolution, the micro and macro evolution "barrier" that you claim exists.

My reason for using the definition "change in frequency of alleles in a population over time" is that it's a) the real definition and b) it is the one used to explain the variation that we see today.

this is purely in the interest of preventing a straw man from being set up.

So, I would enjoy debating with you, if you wish to accept my challenge, we can make a thread where only you and I can post, and this could be a commentary post, for anyone else who wishes to issue challenges.

Thanks for the possible acceptance lightning. I look forward to possibly debating with you. :)

I would enjoy to debate you though, and it would be the first time in a long time that I had gotten that chance. I'm going to be extremely busy next week, but I think I could still manage some time for this. Let me know if you are interested, even given the very unusual (although I feel correct) criticisms I am going to make - such as what I have written above.

Later,

BL
[/quote]
 
In this debate we will be discussing the Theory of Evolution as it is defined by science. That is "The change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time". Whether you like it or not, this is the definition of evolution.

I can accept that challenge, but there are some things that you need to understand before we can move ahead. First, I disagree with your defining of the Theory of Evolution as I accept that definition but still do not accept ToE.

Nevertheless, that is the definition of what evolution is. The Theory itself uses that mechanism to explain the past.

I think you can see that while you defined evolution in the scientific sense in your top quote, you attatched the term "Theory of Evolution" to that definition, which is incorrect. Evolution is the fact that alleles change in frequency over time - ToE is the theory that evolution over millions, or billions, of years has resulted in the diversity that we see. Two very different things.

I like to stick with the accepted scientific definition of a species; that is a population of organisms incabable of breeding with another population of organisms, due to sexual differences, or geography.

Following that definition of species, chihuahuas and great danes are of a different species as they are incapable of breeding. Obviously that is false, since both are truly dogs, but you can see where your definition has a problem. The fact is that it is inadequate.

My reason for using the definition "change in frequency of alleles in a population over time" is that it's a) the real definition and b) it is the one used to explain the variation that we see today.

For evolution in the scientific meaning of the word... but you made a mistake when you attatched "theory of" to that as the ToE says much more than the definition you gave.

Now you may say that this is not important or doesn't matter. Problem is though that if I apply your definition to the situation with chihuahuas and great danes, then I must come to the conclusion that macroevolution has occurred (and this in a situation where we know that it has obviously not). However, if I apply my definition I find that chihuahuas and great danes are still linked genetically within their species (microevolution).


So, I would enjoy debating with you, if you wish to accept my challenge, we can make a thread where only you and I can post, and this could be a commentary post, for anyone else who wishes to issue challenges.

Go for it.

BL
 
I think you can see that while you defined evolution in the scientific sense in your top quote, you attatched the term "Theory of Evolution" to that definition, which is incorrect. Evolution is the fact that alleles change in frequency over time - ToE is the theory that evolution over millions, or billions, of years has resulted in the diversity that we see. Two very different things.

You're right, I apologize for that.

Following that definition of species, chihuahuas and great danes are of a different species as they are incapable of breeding. Obviously that is false, since both are truly dogs, but you can see where your definition has a problem. The fact is that it is inadequate.

ok, like I said, I don't want to start debating stuff like this right now if we're going to have a debate anyways. So by all means bring that up.

Now you may say that this is not important or doesn't matter. Problem is though that if I apply your definition to the situation with chihuahuas and great danes, then I must come to the conclusion that macroevolution has occurred (and this in a situation where we know that it has obviously not). However, if I apply my definition I find that chihuahuas and great danes are still linked genetically within their species (microevolution).

Oh, I agree that it is important to differentiate, it was my mistake in writing that.

once again, I do not wish to discuss this at the moment if we are to be discussing this anyways in the formal debate. So you can bring that up if you wish.



Should I make the thread then???
 
You're right, I apologize for that.

No need to apologize for typos or brain lapses - only time there's a need for apologies is when someone is disingenuous or dishonest, and I know you and I won't have that problem.

Should I make the thread then???

Yeah, go ahead.

BL
 
ThinkerMan said:
I look forward to enjoying the show on this thread.....should it ever start.

Yes, ThinkerMan, I believe that this will be an interesting debate. I look forward to learning from Blue Lighting and The Tuatha'an.
 
It might as well be blue-lightning, as he already has the almighty moderator powers ::grins and evil grin:: :smt029
 
lol! While that would be interesting, he is debating. It would be unfair for his to debate and moderate. The need someone else.
 
Back
Top