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.DarkStar inserts: For this debate to work you will have to accept the fluctuation of my work and study schedules. There may be times when I am absent for a month or more and there may be times when I am able to visit two or three days in a row, time which cannot be used exclusively for this debate.
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.DarkStar inserts: My signature and avatar are not going anywhere. You need not agree with them, just accept them as being my personal choice, a right we all share here at EVC.
I have already proposed terms of debate: I want no name calling
DarkStar inserts: Agreed, but let's include no veiled insults such as the highlighted remarks in your first two paragraphs.
or quote mining;
DarkStar inserts: Define quote mining so that there is no mistake as to what you consider quote mining. I shall accept your definition so long as it does not prohibit the use of any and all quotes, whether by creatonist, ID'er, evolutionist, or Darwinist.
I agree with the definition of "macroevolution" offered in the glossary of this site;
DarkStar inserts: I will expound on this at a later date so as to leave no confusion of what macroevolution means to me. Currently, my schedule should allow some free time on either wednesday or thursday of next week.
I expect the subject to be the consistent application of scientific principles in the theory of common descent;
DarkStar inserts: You will need to expound on this as 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.
I think ten posts by each user is sufficient for a fair and vigorous debate;
DarkStar inserts: I agree.
I think there should be an evolutionist moderator as well as a creationist one.
DarkStar inserts: I agree.
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
™ Version 4.2
