AronRa
Administrator
The following was posted to my YouTube channel, amidst other conversations, all of which will likely disappear or be inaccessible in a matter of days. I'm documenting this here, just so that there is an accessible intelligible record of this discussion somewhere.
I don't need to prove you have nothing in order to prove that I have something. But the debate you propose uses four separate questions which should be addressed differently. I know you don't understand that. Darwin said "ignorance more often begets confidence than does knowledge". That's why you're challenging me to a debate. You're exhibiting the Dunning-Krueger effect. By not promoting or defending any alternate position, then you're not offering a debate. You're asking me to explain the merits of evolution as a theory while you learn from that. There is no other option as you don't know what you think you know, and you have no alternative to offer. I know you don't understand this either, but I know what I'm talking about, and you've already shown that you don't. You're asking to get an education, not a debate.
The fact remains that your questions are not the same. They do NOT 'clarify' the point of the debate. Quite the opposite; they obfuscate it. If you want to clarify it, ask ONE question, not four, and make it something that could actually be answered. If you're going to ask four questions, they should all have the same answer. For example, "Does the theory have any merit after 150 years?" can be answered with a simple, yes. "What is the evidence supporting it?" could be answered with a series of long lists in different categories. "Is there any PROOF of evolution?" requires a combination of both of the previous answers, in addition to an explanation of which definition of "proof" we're using. But "How credible is the theory?" cannot be answered because there is no metric other than a variable adjective, very, completely, conclusively, etc.
So I have to guess that you have never had an actual debate and do not know how this works, just like you don't know what evolution is, or what a theory is. I do not want to be seen as beating up on a cripple. So I am not going to debate you unless you concede that the topic remain what you originally said it should be.
When you say, "not any other theory", what other theories are you thinking of? If we're talking about biodiversity, there is only one.Eric Wolfbitn Jewell said:
If you want to have me on some show explaining the merits of evolution as a theory, then fine. But there is no other theory of biodiversity. Creationism meets exactly none of the criteria required of a scientific theory.
No you cannot prove otherwise, and the fact that you even think that is laughable. We won't need two debates to do that either. Now what are the details of this show you're talking about?
No assumption necessary. This is knowledge born of extensive study. I don't need to sharpen up on evolution either, but you should take your own advice, because your position is hopeless. And stop trying to bluff me. Even if I thought you knew something, even if I thought you could be right, you still couldn't intimidate me. As it is, I know you're wrong, and you'll know that too after the show. So give me the where and when and stop trying to puff up. You've nothing to bluff with.Well yes i can and yes we will, you shouldnt assume so much.. its not your show or mine and its the show the host is wanting to host lol.. Late night in the midlands is the show, over radio and internet, with host michael vara And i would suggest sharpening up on evolution my friend because i can tell you now youll not be able to defend it against me on its own merits
You have no idea what you're talking about or what you're getting yourself into. Give me the format and the question being debated. Is it whether there is an alternative theory to evolution?
You want me to debate four different questions? Each one could be summarized by whether the global scientific consensus could be refuted by the inadequate confusion of a religious fundamentalist. Have you ever had a debate before? I mean a real one? Because no one would agree to debate a handful of vague notions rather than one specific question, especially not when there is no counter-position. You challenged me to debate the merits of evolution as a theory. That necessitates an alternative to be considered. You assert that creationism qualifies as a theory, and I know better. Further you said you could prove it too. No you can't, but that is the counter position. You said you'd do that in a second debate, but there isn't going to be a second debate. This will be that debate. If I am going to explain the merits of evolution as a theory, I will need to compare the only theory of biodivsity there is or ever was to another notion which does not qualify as a theory. That's our debate. It has to be, because the way you structured this, we each get three different rounds of five minutes to ask just one question of our opponent. I will be able to properly address whatever question you ask. But if I'm explaining the merits of evolution as a theory, and I'm not allowed to talk about creationism as the only relevant example of a failed notion that doesn't meet any of those requirements, then what three questions could I ask of you? You're neither defending an alternate theory, nor allowing me to mention the notion you think should qualify, so there wouldn't be any questions I could ask you. Your format therefore fails before it begins -for more reasons than you know. You told me you were looking for someone to represent evolution on someone Else's show. That's fine and I don't mind doing that. But then I find out this is really your show; that this other person is only hosting a show for you at your request. A while back, I posted a rule against accepting debate challenges from random folks who nominate themselves, because there's no point in beating you if you don't represent anyone else. My rule is that I would accept the challenge only if some collective group nominates you to represent them. Otherwise there's nothing in it for me. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/reasonadvocates/2015/07/09/debatable/ Now if you want to pay me for my time, that's different. In which case we'll drop the three questions each, because I know the answers and you don't want to. Otherwise if you expect me to break my rule for you, then we're going to argue the position you suggested in the beginning, the one you invited me with; whether evolution is the only theory of biodiversity, or whether there is another. That way I can still do exactly what you wanted me to do, explaining the merits and evidence of evolution, and I would actually have three questions to ask you when it is my turn to do so. There needs to be a specific point to prove in this type debate, and you opened this conversation with it. So I say that's what it should be.
If I'm just explaining the merits of evolution as a theory, as you initially asked me to do, that's fine. But if I'm 'defending' evolution then there must be something to defend against. Do you not see that? I don't actually need to defend evolution. My point in wanting to keep the challenge on the point of a scientific theory is to prove there is no threat against it.
I don't need to prove you have nothing in order to prove that I have something. But the debate you propose uses four separate questions which should be addressed differently. I know you don't understand that. Darwin said "ignorance more often begets confidence than does knowledge". That's why you're challenging me to a debate. You're exhibiting the Dunning-Krueger effect. By not promoting or defending any alternate position, then you're not offering a debate. You're asking me to explain the merits of evolution as a theory while you learn from that. There is no other option as you don't know what you think you know, and you have no alternative to offer. I know you don't understand this either, but I know what I'm talking about, and you've already shown that you don't. You're asking to get an education, not a debate.
The fact remains that your questions are not the same. They do NOT 'clarify' the point of the debate. Quite the opposite; they obfuscate it. If you want to clarify it, ask ONE question, not four, and make it something that could actually be answered. If you're going to ask four questions, they should all have the same answer. For example, "Does the theory have any merit after 150 years?" can be answered with a simple, yes. "What is the evidence supporting it?" could be answered with a series of long lists in different categories. "Is there any PROOF of evolution?" requires a combination of both of the previous answers, in addition to an explanation of which definition of "proof" we're using. But "How credible is the theory?" cannot be answered because there is no metric other than a variable adjective, very, completely, conclusively, etc.
So I have to guess that you have never had an actual debate and do not know how this works, just like you don't know what evolution is, or what a theory is. I do not want to be seen as beating up on a cripple. So I am not going to debate you unless you concede that the topic remain what you originally said it should be.
I say again, you have already demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about. So I would do this, against my own rules, for the purpose of broadcasting an educational point. Regarding biodiversity, there are no other theories at all. If we are going to discuss the merits of evolution as a theory, I certainly should also be allowed to explain how the only would-be contender fails all those same criteria. If I am defending evolution, then I am defending science against the pseudoscience which you represent. I would not be defending the modern synthesis of evolution as we understand it today against Darwin. That is not even possible, and I'll be happy to explain why. But your current format also still would not allow me any questions for you since you refuse to take an alternate position. Your present inability to understand what I will explain to you cannot be your only debate tactic. That, as I said, would not be a debate at all. So the question to be settled should be whether evolution is the foundation of modern biology, as the world-wide scientific community insists that it is) or whether there is any other theory to compete with evolution.
You did tell what your argument is, that you can prove that creationism qualifies as an alternate theory to evolution. I'm certainly willing to debate that, because I don't just believe that you're wrong, I know it, and that will all too easy to prove. So it's not my problem that you can't focus on any one debate question, (because you don't know what you're talking about) nor that you refuse to pursue the topic you invited me with. If your host wants one show on evolution and one on creation, then he's not asking for a debate. I would also suggest that if it is his show, you should let him invite me instead of you, because you're not representing him well. If it's his show and not yours, then he gets to determine how it will go down, not you.
Thats cool dude.. i'll just let everyone know youre afraid to debate evolution and the science behind it and how it holds water on its own.. no problem..
i guess when you said you werent intimidated, you were just letting the cat out of the closet eh? You were lol ..I'll let you know when i'm done with my newest video on AronRa running from a creationist.. already have the screeenshots
