AronRa
Administrator
In the chat of a debate on the Non-Sequitur show, Christian Wentz said that I was closed minded for saying that professional scientists shouldn't bother reading the propaganda posted on AnswersInGenesis. So I asked him, "can you show something AiG has ever published that you can show to be correct compared to the scientific position on that topic?"
He referred me to this paper, which I immediately posted to Facebook. Initial responses to that included the following comments:
"Not realizing that when you say "published" you don't mean just any random series of words posted on the Internet."
"So, their idea of 'proof' is argumentum ad verecundiam and some non sequiturs about vague scripture?"
"That's Hilarious! An impressive collection of unsubstantiated claims. "
UGH....I wanted to give it a fair shot.....it is so confusing right away. That 3rd paragraph, though .....I think my nose is bleeding now ;-)
"Polonium Halos? Really? Didn't we cover this in 2015?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPSak--gFIU
(actually I covered that in my first article of counter apologetics ever, on Talk.Origins back in the late 1990s)
Then we got into the "Post-Podium" [after party] of that debate. Christian joined me there to, where he publicly accepted my challenge to prove evolution to his satisfaction.
Here is the challenge as outlined in my book.
"I can prove that biological evolution is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species, and that it is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. I can prove this even to your satisfaction over the course of a dozen mutual exchanges. The only trick to that is that you must properly address every point or query, ignoring none. If you repeatedly ignore direct questions, you will default this discussion, and I will be under no obligation to continue."
In all but one case, my quarry has failed the challenge by repeatedly ignoring direct questions, failing to properly address any point or query in our exchange. Several of those debates can be found on this very forum.
In our live discussion on the Non-Sequitur Show, Christian said there were three things that would convince him that creationism was not true. He mentioned the first, being if the universe could be shown to be eternal. Even though the origin of the universe doesn't have anything at all to do with evolution, everyone--myself included--jumped in to disprove that, and we never got to hear the other two items. So before we begin, I would like to know what those other two items are. Though I'm still going to stick to the topic regardless what his criteria is.
He referred me to this paper, which I immediately posted to Facebook. Initial responses to that included the following comments:
"Not realizing that when you say "published" you don't mean just any random series of words posted on the Internet."
"So, their idea of 'proof' is argumentum ad verecundiam and some non sequiturs about vague scripture?"
"That's Hilarious! An impressive collection of unsubstantiated claims. "
UGH....I wanted to give it a fair shot.....it is so confusing right away. That 3rd paragraph, though .....I think my nose is bleeding now ;-)
"Polonium Halos? Really? Didn't we cover this in 2015?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPSak--gFIU
(actually I covered that in my first article of counter apologetics ever, on Talk.Origins back in the late 1990s)
Then we got into the "Post-Podium" [after party] of that debate. Christian joined me there to, where he publicly accepted my challenge to prove evolution to his satisfaction.
Here is the challenge as outlined in my book.
"I can prove that biological evolution is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species, and that it is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. I can prove this even to your satisfaction over the course of a dozen mutual exchanges. The only trick to that is that you must properly address every point or query, ignoring none. If you repeatedly ignore direct questions, you will default this discussion, and I will be under no obligation to continue."
In all but one case, my quarry has failed the challenge by repeatedly ignoring direct questions, failing to properly address any point or query in our exchange. Several of those debates can be found on this very forum.
In our live discussion on the Non-Sequitur Show, Christian said there were three things that would convince him that creationism was not true. He mentioned the first, being if the universe could be shown to be eternal. Even though the origin of the universe doesn't have anything at all to do with evolution, everyone--myself included--jumped in to disprove that, and we never got to hear the other two items. So before we begin, I would like to know what those other two items are. Though I'm still going to stick to the topic regardless what his criteria is.