I stand by my statements in post #12 of this thread. You seem surprisingly reluctant to take part in this debate, even though you continue to claim that scientific evidence for macroevolution is nonexistent and that evolution is a fairy tale. If you were really confident of your case and willing to debate, you would have long since started the thread in "Proposed New Topics" and we'd probably be done by now. As it is, you've posted dozens of messages here at EvC since I first challenged you, but you still say you need to define "macroevolution" appropriately.
If you were here with the intent of engaging in reasonable debate, I'm not sure why it is taking you so long to respond to my challenge. Like I said, you've posted dozens of messages since the beginning of November, so I find it difficult to believe your claim of not having the time to present your case. However, if you're only here to bait your evolutionist enemies with inflammatory rhetoric, your behavior makes much more sense.
The reason I brought up quote mining is because your tactics have always seemed to hinge on rhetorical debate and never on the methodology that serves as the foundation for scientific endeavor. Offering selected quotes to support a specific claim is one thing, but quite different than spewing forth isolated phrases from scientists and writers intended to produce a false impression. Using quotes from evolutionists to undermine evolutionary theory is particularly laughable. The debate I envision is not one that will benefit from your library of sound-bites.
quote:I view a fair number of areas regarding the theory of evolution to be unscientific due to the inability to falsify and/or test using purely scientific means. I shall attempt to provide you with adequate examples and allow you to either agree or attempt to correct any perceived error in my thought process. Obviously, the final analysis of the correctness of my thought process is mine alone.
This is what we're supposed to be debating, DarkStar. Why do you keep ranting about the topic as if I should accept your claims when I'm trying to engage you in an examination of that very issue? As far as the correctness of your thought process concerning the scientific nature of evolutionary theory, the final analysis in fact is not yours alone. Your opinion of the history and development of either life on Earth or the scientific methodology we use to study it is irrelevant. Your critique of evolution should be based on the true nature of scientific inquiry, regardless of what you think it should be.
quote: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.
--I am not a proponent of ID, however If this debate has not yet started, I would be happy to participate as a moderator. My position is very similar to what I advocated early 2004.