APP - Hypothetical Scenario for Thinkers

since you don't want to identify which element of "established science" you want to discuss and we were talking about origins when you stepped into the conversation shall we discuss the origin of the universe?.....

so do we at least agree that there is no "established science" prior to the point of the Big Bang?.....my views do not diverge from established science on the issue of the origin of the universe......

however between the competing theories that the origin of the universe was intentionally caused (intelligent design a/k/a shit was made to happen) versus the theory that it simply happened (shit happens), I find the former more plausible.....

is that the proper framework for the debate?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't have any views which are different than established science, therefore I cannot answer the question you have posed.....now, would you like to debate the statement I actually made?....this whole farce is occurring, only because you altered what I stated.....now, if you kindly oblige by identifying that which you call "established science" which is contradictory to the concept of intelligent design I would be happy to oblige....until you do so, it is impossible.....

I am more than ready to debate you, if you will only identify that which you want to debate......if you continue to refuse, I will chalk this up as another runaway by you.....
Click to expand...

I can name one right now that proves your a liar.

PostmodernProphet said:
most seculars are completely ignorant of what evolution actually teaches.....micro-evolution is observable, macro-evolution is a joke.
Click to expand...
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs.....surprisingly, when we had that debate, you didn't prove me a liar....why do you suddenly think you can do so now?.....

macro evolution is not established science.....
Click to expand...

That's right. The idea of "macro" evolution isn't science at all. Biology doesn't distinguish between micro and macro evolution since there is no mechanism that limits change over time.

Evolution, speciation, common ancestry ARE very much established science. Take it up with Mott, our resident biology masters degree holder.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I don't have any views which are different than established science, therefore I cannot answer the question you have posed.....now, would you like to debate the statement I actually made?....this whole farce is occurring, only because you altered what I stated.....now, if you kindly oblige by identifying that which you call "established science" which is contradictory to the concept of intelligent design I would be happy to oblige....until you do so, it is impossible.....

I am more than ready to debate you, if you will only identify that which you want to debate......if you continue to refuse, I will chalk this up as another runaway by you.....
Click to expand...



http://executableoutlines.com/cc/cc_07.htm
 
Ice Dancer said:
And of course you laugh at all those facts you disproved.

http://executableoutlines.com/cc/cc_07.htm

The List Of Scientists
-- Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
Click to expand...

Yeah, I laugh because we have mitochondrial DNA, we have plenty of transitional forms (a fact your little "paper" got completely wrong), we have all sorts of evidence for speciation, common descent through evolution and natural selection. Because of this, it's up to you to show us the mechanism that limits change over time (preventing "MACRO" evolution). The fact is, you can't show such a mechanism and we have all sorts of evidence for a mechanism that isn't limited over time called natural selection.

The burden of proof is upon you. It's not enough to claim it can't be observed. A simple analogy goes like this:

If you see a dead chicken, there's teeth marks in the chicken that match the pattern left by a dog you own. There are dog prints all around in the mud surrounding the chicken's body that match your dog's prints. Your dog had escaped the night before and wasn't found until the next afternoon, a few hours after you found your dead chicken. All the evidence points toward your dog as the guilty party, yet you didn't observe it directly. What do you rationally conclude about what killed your chicken?
 
By the way, if you can show us a mechanism that limits evolution to "micro" evolution you're in the running for a nobel prize.

(By the way, we have observed speciation in the lab.)
 
ib1yysguy said:
Yeah, I laugh because we have mitochondrial DNA, we have plenty of transitional forms (a fact your little "paper" got completely wrong), we have all sorts of evidence for speciation, common descent through evolution and natural selection. Because of this, it's up to you to show us the mechanism that limits change over time (preventing "MACRO" evolution). The fact is, you can't show such a mechanism and we have all sorts of evidence for a mechanism that isn't limited over time called natural selection.

The burden of proof is upon you. It's not enough to claim it can't be observed. A simple analogy goes like this:

If you see a dead chicken, there's teeth marks in the chicken that match the pattern left by a dog you own. There are dog prints all around in the mud surrounding the chicken's body that match your dog's prints. Your dog had escaped the night before and wasn't found until the next afternoon, a few hours after you found your dead chicken. All the evidence points toward your dog as the guilty party, yet you didn't observe it directly. What do you rationally conclude about what killed your chicken?
Click to expand...


It's not up to me to prove Macro evolution does not happen when evolutionists have failed to prove it does!
 
Ice Dancer said:
It's not up to me to prove Macro evolution does not happen when evolutionists have failed to prove it does!
Click to expand...

OH please. We have all sorts of very convincing evidence. Ask Mottley for a rundown or review any number of the threads we've done about it in the past. There is overwhelming evidence for it. Your challenge is to furnish us with evidence that there is a mechanism that limits change over time (evolution through natural selection).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top