(November 14, 2014 at 4:47 pm)Surgenator Wrote: @ Esq

You did a good job rebuting HM opening statement. You could of made a stronger argument against macro evolution. For example,

1. HM thinks "macro" evolution allows for a fish to go to a non-fish. Such a process would be a violation of evolution because it would be a jump from one branch to another branch on the evolutionary tree.

2. Once two groups of a species can no longer produce viable offspring, the micro evolutionary changes between the two groups will grow more pronounce until they are two very different looking species even to a creationist.

Also, I would of demanded a definition of what a kind is. Not examples, but a definition.

To me this is the only really valid point in all of the discussion I've seen on this (and to be charitable I've by no means seen all of it). Micro evolution is the only claim made about evolution. Macro jumps are just a culmination of micro steps, are they not. No matter how fast they occur. The steps are also logical, if not thoroughly evidenced.

(November 14, 2014 at 12:41 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

His_Majesty Wrote: I take the position of Kent Hovind, who calls the theory of evolution rightfully what it is, a religion.

I must admit, the moment I read that, any shreds of micro-respect I had for Madge's position went extinct out of sheer embarrassment.

Such an obvious case of projection. Like Hovind, dumb-dumb's reasoning process is entirely corrupted by religion. From their twisted point of view, all reasoning is necessarily religious in nature. So if you believe something different than they do it can only mean that you are operating on a different religious script. An open ended, truth seeking kind of reasoning is beyond their comprehension.

What a train wreck the 'debate' was.

Ring species disprove everything H_M posted, and the sad thing is, that he has no clue why.

To see someone admitting to be an apologist (as if it is something of worth), is funny. To see an idiot botch a debate TWICE is priceless.

(November 15, 2014 at 10:41 am)Simon Moon Wrote: What a train wreck the 'debate' was.

Ring species disprove everything H_M posted, and the sad thing is, that he has no clue why.

What? You mentioned "ring species" and no one mentioned There are no [ignore] good cases [/ignore] of ring species?
This place must be running out of quote-miners.

I can't understand H_M's inclination to deny obvious conclusions when even many of his co-religionists have embraced the Darwinian principles now abundantly and irrefutably apparent to nearly everyone in virtually all areas of modern scientific inquiry. A more interesting debate and a perspective that could at least be taken seriously is an argument over whether or not environmental change in relation to random genetic variation and a series of selection pressures can sufficiently account for the rise of higher species from so simple a beginning, such as bacteria, without a designed mechanism in which nature is able to reconstruct and specialize certain functions that result in beings with the propensity for knowledge about otherworldly powers, among other intriguing characteristics.

...Sometimes I think I would make a better Christian apologist than actual Christian apologists.

Why are the staff discussing this in the debate thread? I see no reason why those posts can't be made in this thread where the mortals can join in.

(November 15, 2014 at 9:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why are the staff discussing this in the debate thread? I see no reason why those posts can't be made in this thread where the mortals can join in.

Fair point. I'll delete my comment.

(November 15, 2014 at 9:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why are the staff discussing this in the debate thread? I see no reason why those posts can't be made in this thread where the mortals can join in.

You got a point there. I'll move my latest one here and refrain from posting any more out of reach of the rest of the boards.

Esquilax Wrote:Hey, wait, I just noticed something: His_Majesty says that this is the only place he's seen where people are made to respond to the opening statements, and that's his excuse for not following the rules.

... But the reason CD had to contact him at all is because not only did he not present his opening statement at all, his first post was a response to my opening statement.

His excuse literally isn't even consistent with his own actions within the debate, let alone the fact that he agreed to the rules beforehand.

(November 15, 2014 at 9:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Why are the staff discussing this in the debate thread? I see no reason why those posts can't be made in this thread where the mortals can join in.

Good point. Please use the public thread. The debate is over, and we really should not be posting to closed threads except in an official capacity.