Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 15, 2024, 6:55 pm
Thread Rating:
Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
|
The debate can continue - HM's first post will count as his first rebuttal, and he isbexpected to post an opening argument before Esquilax has to respond. Both participants have been notified by PM what is expected of them.
I'm unlocking the thread so HM can post his argument.
For the sake of transparency, I will say that my immediate reaction upon seeing what happened was to request that the debate continue. I didn't want to let it end on a technicality, and I'm glad it gets to continue now.
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects! (November 13, 2014 at 9:57 pm)Esquilax Wrote: For the sake of transparency, I will say that my immediate reaction upon seeing what happened was to request that the debate continue. I didn't want to let it end on a technicality, and I'm glad it gets to continue now. Ditto, but it wouldn't have been fair to expect you to continue with the irregularity uncorrected. Glad a solution was found. RE: Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
November 13, 2014 at 10:20 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2014 at 10:20 pm by SteelCurtain.)
So he challenged everyone here to debates, then shows he has zero idea how debates go.
Well, I hope he takes a little more time formulating an opening statement. The first rebuttal was embarrassing...
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
The Dunning Kreuger effect is definitely strong with His Maj.
RE: Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
November 13, 2014 at 10:44 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2014 at 11:02 pm by Losty.)
(November 13, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, like, does anyone have any thoughts about my opening statement, in the meantime? *Losty runs off to actually read Esqui's opening statement. Very educational. I will admit, I knew next to nothing about evolution before reading your post. Oh let me compliment both players. HisMajesty, your post was also um...cute. RE: Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.
November 13, 2014 at 11:08 pm
(This post was last modified: November 13, 2014 at 11:12 pm by Dolorian.)
His_Majesty Wrote:The only thing we see in the present day is animals producing their own kind...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, and fish produce fish...so on and so forth. This is MICROEVOLUTION, people...I agree, microevolution happens every day..but a dog producing a dog is a lot different than a reptile changing to a bird...which is something we DON'Tsee. Never mind that His_Majesty doesn't explains what he means by "kind" (an antiquated concept). This statement from him reveals to me a common yet fundamental misunderstanding about how evolution works. Under evolution, a member of one species doesn't produce a member of some other species. Rather, the gradual and small changes that species undergo over many generations lead to an accumulation of features and differences that in turn lead to speciation and divergence. But at every step along the line, we always have living organisms producing members of their own species. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)