Macroevolution Debate: DarkStar vs MrHambre

I suggest to ADMIN that they set up {MACROEVOLUTION DEBATE} as a {Great Debate} topic with DarkStar and MrHambre as the two debaters.see http://EvC Forum: Just for fun: quote-mining creationists for the gauntlet being thrown down.even though it will be hard to keep from commenting ....This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 19:57 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

It will take a bit of discussion to frame the debate. Percy will talk to them about it I'm sure.

Are yhey willing to do this. If they do I have no problem authorizing it

---

Yo soy BoriCua Pa Que tu lo Sepas

There need to be rules
Percy is the one who has run these before
I think we should wait till he suggests how to start it and run it.

No problem

---

Yo soy BoriCua Pa Que tu lo Sepas

we could let DarkStar define the term for starters, otherwise we could end up with a lot of posts about how the definition isn't correct.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.This thread is ONLY for MrHambre and DarkStar to work out the terms of the debate. The eventual moderator can then help them formulate the opening post of the actual debate.All others please refrain from posting.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 11-27-2004 06:44 PM

I’m eager to have a Great Debate with DarkStar, moderated by Percy or an admin of his choosing.DarkStar has asserted here that We all know that there is no more scientific evidence to support macroevolution than there is to support creation, perhaps even less. I want to examine that claim and its implications.I don’t want to have this debate descend into name-calling and quote-mining. I’d be glad to support my assertions with relevant citations. However, the discussion needs to remain focused on the issue of macroevolution’s basis in responsible scientific methodology.regards,
Esteban HambreEdited to add link and quoteThis message has been edited by MrHambre, 11-28-2004 03:28 PM

I agree.When choosing a moderator it would be preferable to choose someone with admin status. the debateres should decide who they wish to have as moderator

---

Yo soy BoriCua Pa Que tu lo Sepas

I sent DarkStar an e-mail on 11-29 to link him to this page, so he could discuss his terms for the Great Debate. I notice that he's been here and posted a couple of messages since then, but hasn't given any indication of continued interest in the debate.I'd be glad to post the first message in the Great Debate, but I'd rather DarkStar let me know he's still up for the debate, he agrees to certain ground rules, and that he's satisfied with a particular definition of macroevolution. In the absence of any feedback from him, I don't want to jump the gun and later be accused of involving him in a debate in whose terms he had no say.I'm going with the general definition of macroevolution offered in the EvC glossary of terms:

quote:

---

Evolution of taxa higher than the species level (for example, genera, families, orders, classes), commonly entailing major morphological changes.

---

Basically, the notion of common ancestry of all life on Earth, the concept of the Tree of Life envisioned by Darwin.I'd like to see ten posts by each user, just to keep the debate from dragging on and to discourage pot-shot posting. I have no problem with Percy's suggestion of AdminJazzLover, and I'd like an evolutionist admin as a moderator too. I think Ned would be a good choice, but he may be more interested in the "Peanut Gallery" action.I'm looking forward to getting the debate underway.regards,
Esteban Hambre

I am still interested in this debate. My choice for moderator(s) is yet to be determined. Obviously no one who has shown an undue hostility towards me would be desired, so that would exclude both nosy and jar, but I do accept that you should choose the evo moderator, even if that means choosing nosy or jar, if that is your preference. I believe their should be two moderators, one evo and one id'er. The id'er I would have preferred is either TrueCreation or WillowTree but I haven't seen a recent post by either of them. I will continue to search for an acceptable candidate.

---

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar

Today marks one month since I challenged DarkStar to a debate concerning the scientific basis of macroevolution. Though he claims to be interested in the debate, he hasn't mentioned any terms except the choice of moderators. On even this matter he hasn't been able to make a decision.I only bring this issue up repeatedly because DarkStar continues to use the signature explicitly referring to the "myth of macroevolution" not once but twice. His current avatar refers to evolution as a "fairy tale for grownups." Evidently, for someone so certain of the validity of his claim, he is reluctant to defend it in a public forum.I have already proposed terms of debate: I want no name calling or quote mining; I agree with the definition of "macroevolution" offered in the glossary of this site; I expect the subject to be the consistent application of scientific principles in the theory of common descent; I think ten posts by each user is sufficient for a fair and vigorous debate; I think there should be an evolutionist moderator as well as a creationist one.I'm ready to make the first move. If DarkStar would rather submit the first post, that's fine. However, it's starting to look like he's not confident enough in his claim that macroevolution is an unscientific myth to defend it in a debate. Methinks with his avatar and signature DarkStar doth protest too much.regards,
Esteban Hambre

Hi DarkStar,Assuming they agree, the moderators will be: It doesn't matter who begins the debate. Either you or MrHambre can begin the debate in [forum=-25], and once it's approved it'll be promoted to [forum=-8]. The first post should set the stage for the debate, defining terms, setting context and clearly indentifying what is being asserted so that the pro and con positions are well defined.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Which admin is the evolutionist/darwinist and which is the creationist/Id'er?

MrHambre writes:
Today marks one month since I challenged DarkStar to a debate concerning the scientific basis of macroevolution. Though he claims to be interested in the debate, he hasn't mentioned any terms except the choice of moderators. On even this matter he hasn't been able to make a decision.I only bring this issue up repeatedly because DarkStar continues to use the signature explicitly referring to the "myth of macroevolution" not once but twice. His current avatar refers to evolution as a "fairy tale for grownups." Evidently, for someone so certain of the validity of his claim, he is reluctant to defend it in a public forum.
I have already proposed terms of debate: I want no name calling or quote mining; I agree with the definition of "macroevolution" offered in the glossary of this site; I expect the subject to be the consistent application of scientific principles in the theory of common descent; I think ten posts by each user is sufficient for a fair and vigorous debate; I think there should be an evolutionist moderator as well as a creationist one.

---

The theory of evolution is a viable theory, absent the myth of macroevolution.
Once the myth of macroevolution is included, the viability of the theory of evolution vanishes as it slowly evolves into just another example of an implausible story,
nestled amongst the numerous fairytale's of our youth.-----DarkStar