Pastor Dave is now saying that he is not the one running from the debate,
but he is not really telling the truth. He offered to debate in another
group (a paleo group) and when I took him up on that offer, as described
below, he just disappeared, and now just no longer posts to that group.
When I have posted the same acceptance of his challenge here, he has just
ignored it.
This is definitely running away from the debate. Here is the challenge, as
I accepted it:
Pastor Dave seems to be willing to begin reviewing the evidence that applies
to the Creation/Evolution debate. I had repeatedly let him know I was ready
to discuss the evidence itself, and in detail, rather than simply go around
in his circles of "here is what evolutionists believe!" and "prove it!".
So, eventually, he seemed willing to take me up on that offer and wanted to
dive into the evidence. Below is his proposal and my response. As you can
see, Dave's idea was to put me in the position of proving something (which
is not something subject to "proof") but then excluding all the evidence
relevant to the issues.
Instead, a much more sensible and reasonable approach is to simply take our
two positions, the Young Earth Creationist and the Theistic Evolutionist,
and see which position is more likely to be correct given the evidence we
have. I would even be willing to handicap it and say that my position must
be MORE likely to be correct by a significant margin. But each side must
show how the evidence supports their position and does not support the
other's. The idea to consider the weight of the evidence as a whole, rather
than just pot-shot bits and pieces.
We must use our own words and must not do any "quote-mining". Citing and
quoting actual data, of course, is acceptable, but not just other peoples'
arguments on the points. Here is the text of the initial discussion about
the debate.
Pastor Dave wrote:
However, you have been persistent and you just might
be someone who might turn to honesty in the debate,
so okay, why not. We must have some rules though,
that must be followed, or it is an automatic
concession. I propose the following, as a start...
RULES:
1) Any violation of the rules, will result in an
automatic concession by the offending party,
which will be publicly stated by said offending
party. The other party is able to allow them a
reprieve, if they so choose, but is in no way
obligated to.
Sure.
2) The debate will be conducted in a polite fashion
and there will be no discussion of the debate, nor
the other person (except if someone asks if we are
involved in a debate, in which case one may simply
answer "Yes" and state this rule and end it there)
in any other thread, in this, or any other group,
while it is continuing. Plus, all other posts by other
people in our debate thread, must be ignored by
both parties at all times.
Sure.
3) The debate is regarding macroevolution, which
will be defined as that which is represented as a
simple example. That example being (but not
limited to), proving that canidae, for example,
came from non-canidae. It is not sensible to
spend days debating exact definitions and so,
this example serves as what it will be your
obligation to show evidence for. It would be
dishonest to deny that you believe this and it is
that belief which I am talking about. Mice from
mice and dogs from dogs and even dogs from
wolves, is microevolution, which is observed
and is therefore, science.
No, that will not do. This will be a discussion to determine which of our
two positions is best supported by the evidence as a whole. It will not be
a matter of one of trying to prove our point. We will review each category
of the evidence and see whether it supports your position or mine overall.
I believe your position is that all life was created all at once (over a few
day period) within the last 10,000 years. More particularly, I would assume
you believe that all species we have now actually developed from those
exemplars that were on the ark even a shorter time ago.
I believe that God used evolutionary processes over billions of years to
create all the species we currently have on this planet, but I make no claim
whatsoever about abiogenesis (as above). I believe that it is most likely
that this evolutionary development occurred very much according to the
modern synthesis of the theory of evolution, meaning natural selection,
mutation, genetic flow and genetic drift.
4) Evidence of microevolution shall not be considered
evidence for macroevolution. Microevolution is only
evidence for microevolution and claiming that it "adds
up to macroevolution", is a claim, not evidence and
is no different than my saying that it doesn't. I have
already stated that microevolution is indeed, science.
Well, no, we will not reject ANY evidence. All evidence bearing on the
subject will be considered and each of us can argue the degree of weight it
should be given and why, and whether it supports our position or detracts
from the the others. If you are truly interested in a debate aimed at
getting to the truth, then you can't start by rejecting evidence. You could
argue why it should hold less value, of course.
As for this evidence in particular, the processes that make up
micro-evolutionary development (natural selection, mutation, genetic drift,
etc) are the same mechanics that I believe lead to macro changes as well.
So, a series of micro changes within a given species, and even leading to a
new species, is definitely some evidence for macro changes, I would argue.
Remember, in the end, this will not be a matter of whether either of us has
"proven" their position, but simply which position is better supported by
the evidence we have, as well as the logical conclusions which can be drawn
from that evidence. It is the degree of certainty that should prevail, not
a matter of absolute proof or not.
5) There will be no attempts to shift the burden.
You claim that it happens and therefore, it is not
up to me to prove that it doesn't. This discussion
isn't about me proving God. This is about your
belief.
No, it is not about either of us proving anything, but about both of us
arguing the evidence to support our position and show that the other's
position is not supported.
But I agree this will not be about either one of us proving God, since we
both believe entirely in God.
6) Each point that is in line with the discussion must
be fully discussed. Ignoring points is not allowed.
Oh, absolutely.
7) Each party shall be allowed up to 72 hours to
respond. A person may need to actually have
a life. :)
That is fine. I would suggest that with each category of evidence, we both
state our position: why the evidence in that category supports our position
and detracts from the others. Then we each will have 72 hours to respond to
the other's position on that evidence. This can go on until we think we
have exhausted that category and we can move on to the next.
8) Conclusions about data, are not the same as
actual evidence that is conclusive of a point.
For example, a specific mutation that is common
to say, chimps and humans, does not prove common
descent. That is a conclusion. It could have also
happened to both, as the result of common design.
Well, no, that is excluding evidence again. ALL evidence will be
considered, it is all a matter of the weight that it should be given. Also,
remember that we are not talking about proof here, but the overall weight of
evidence. If you restricted the evidence to that which is conclusive on a
point, then neither one of us would have any evidence at all to use to argue
our position. There is very little data which can not have differing
interpretations. The point will be the argue why your interpretation of the
evidence is the correct one.
Evolutionists also always ask why, if God created
us this way, there is so much in common? The
reality is three fold.
a) If there weren't so much in common, it would be
proof that there was not a common designer.
b) A common designer would not keep reinventing
the wheel, every time he wanted to make a new
model car.
c) If we were not all based on the same building
blocks, we could only eat each other. A common
designer would know that.
Hence, the evolutionists statement that it proves
common descent, is a conclusion about the data,
not proof of common descent.
We are not talking about proof here.
In other words, your "evidence" should only allow
for the conclusion of common descent and no
other. Genetic similarities do not do that and
frankly, we have things in common with sea
creatures, that we don't have in common with
chimps and that chimps don't have in common
with sea creatures, so that ammo can be fired
back anyway and it would speak the opposite.
See above. I am not going to exclude you from using evidence that only
allows for the conclusion of special creation, either. That would leave you
with nothing to argue with.
9) ???
This is a start and they can be discussed.
I would suggest that some of the categories of evidence we could use would
be the fossil record (which would include dating, I suppose), genetic
comparisons, anatomical comparisons, biogeographical issues, and we could
also get into the flood geology if you like. I would even be willing to
include the Scripture as a valid form of evidence to argue from, and so a
category could be Biblical interpretation, including literalism, etc.
Another rule should be that every post should be our own words, not cut and
past from others, as much as possible. If we are quoting a particular piece
of data, that is fine, but the bulk of the argument should be our own.
.
|
