E v. C

Thanks to my opponent for his response. Unfortunately, his conduct has reached frustratingly dishonest levels. "Pro has yet to refute my argument regarding evolutionary stasis, which is firmly supportive and in favor of my motion." No, it isn't. In the first place, Con has failed to MAKE any points about Creationism. He has failed to establish what he means by it specifically, what it predicts, or how we'd test for it. He has maintained it as a nebulous concept, all the better to equivocate himself, while claiming it is me doing the equivocating. How, specifically, does evolutionary stasis support Creationism? As regards the quote: No. I said that the EXPLANATION we had was satisfactory. There is no paradox. A quote is meaningless if the argument is bad. Einstein could have said "Planes cannot fly, because nothing that is heavier than air can fly", this would not make it a true statement. And trying to claim that the equilibrium of an individual species is a "failure" of evolution is a ridiculous argument. Evolution relies on random changes, of which only the neutral or beneficial continue (in the broad sense). That some species wouldn't have beneficial changes, and/or wouldn't change much, is just a facet of probability. If Creationism were true, however, I would expect a certain consistency, as there would be no reason, then, to have that element of randomness. Of course, as Con has not stated what his argument IS regarding Creationism, it is difficult for me to really know what I should expect. "This means that you 5 is unnecessary..." No, I referenced Mendel, I just gave listed [3] rather than [5]. As regards to the video, it is not my job to find the arguments in support. Con cited a video that cites a book, but doesn't give any contextual reason to believe either that the quote, itself, is relevantly in context, or that it is based on sound reasoning. Further, that Professor Sanford has done good work does not excuse him from stepping into cosmology (a field he is NOT an expert in), nor does it mean he is always right; if this were the case, then all the scientists on the opposite side of the fence from him would be equally right, and therefore Con has conceded! Obviously, this is not the case. Con makes a simple argument from authority, and it fails on those marits. As to Wikipedia, let ME quote Con : "I would like for Pro not to use Wikipedia as a source when it is itself unsourced." "Indeed, I myself use wikipedia, but only for statements that are sourced. Pro quoted an unsourced portion of the entry. Now, at best, he could argue that it references Muller"s original article, but that would be a missource because Muller definitely provides a reason for ignoring such phenomena." So, Con complains that I point out things that Muller ignores, then goes on to say Muller has reasons for ignoring such phenomena. That means that, 1, the point was valid, and 2, that Con is being disingenuous. If he concedes that the statement is true, complaining that it's unsourced (when it's a description of something) is ridiculous and dishonest. If he would like to provide Muller's reasons, he may feel free to post them in support of his argument. In the meantime, I ask him to stop being so fundamentally dishonest as to complain about sourcing when he agrees with the description. This is akin to a child who, when told he shouldn't have hit is classmate, says "I didn't do it! And anyway, I had a good reason for why I did it." ""impossible for me to caricature it" Let me once again quote myself: "organisms can never become something other than their "kind," which God (supposedly) created" (I will not repeat allegations of rule breaking by Pro in the previous round, as he has done so again, I will just cite the new cases.) " Stop. First of all, Con's conduct is insulting. What rule have I broken? Second of all, Con still has not made his case...this is one aspect of it ONLY, and one with an undefined term, no less. Upon what does Con base that? We know that change happens. Con conceded this. So now, it is up to Con to show why there is a point beyond which change cannot happen. And it is up to Con to define his "kinds" term. "This is enough to show that kind=/=species, and that the statement that God created "species" is false. It is also apparent that by "degradational" I refer to the net effect of mutation." Define Kind. Which you haven't done. Again, I repeat my demand: Make your actual case. "As my argument regarding stasis is unrefuted," Con's argument regarding stasis is invalid. It does no harm to the evolutionary model. Con has continued to make assertions about what "must" be true for evolution, but has not established why the stasis of some species harms evolution, nor how the stasis of some species and the change of other species supports Creationism. As regards to filling the text box, I'd point out that I specifically asked that we attempt to be concise. Instead, Con have consistently filled the box, making multiple argtuments to attack portions of the evolutionary model, while providing exactly zero evidence in support of Con's own model and, indeed, never actually providing his model. I must demand Con stop attacking until he has made some semblance of a case for his own position; as has been noted several times, attacking the opposition does nothing to establish Con's case. "Let me start with a brief overview of his argument. Pro repeatedly and undeniably breaks his rules. Over and again, we see that he does not begin from first principles." It was, in fact, Con who mentioned first principles. And, Con as consistently not used first principles. I encourage him to look up what those actually are, because he hasn't used any, and his complaints about "rule breaking" fall so utterly flat as to make me question his honesty. "Pro gives us numerous examples of STE, which nobody disagrees with, and claims that they support GTE." While Con claims that there is a mechanism to prevent what he calls GTE, despite the fact that it is simple accumulation of STE. It is up to Con, who has conceded small changes, to prove HOW these small changes cannot add up to a large change, of "kind" (a word Con continues not to define). "It is not the fact that no animals can be naturally altered genetically past a certain stage but that there is absolutely no evidence of such. It is the BoP of Pro to provide such evidence, aka. evidence of GTE. " Nope. It is up to Con to establish specifically where that line is, and why change cannot happen past it, because that is Con's assertion. This is akin to someone claiming erosion on large geologic scales doesn't happen; we've shown it happening on small scales, but we haven't been able to see it on large scales simply because we haven't been looking for long enough. Of course, with erosion, there is no evidence of how the item looked originally, just that erosion has happened, yet with evolution we have an extensive fossil record showing changes over time. For Con's next points: Sorry. Between the insults, the false accusations of fallacy, and the false accusations of rule breaking, I'm having a hard time maintaining civility. Con, YOU accepted a shared BoP. Trying to claim, now, that there isn't one is fundamentally dishonest of you. You have the BoP of your assertions. You have yet to give ANY proof of them and haven't even made your case for your own position! We know that Evolution, at some level happens. It is now up to Con to establish HOW it doesn't happen on a larger scale, if he hopes to argue that it is more likely that God did it. It is also up to Con to establish an argument for why the standard cosmological view of the universe is unsound, which is necessary for YEC to be true. He has not done so. It is also up to Con to establish an argument for God's existence. He has not done so. Con has 1 more round to establish those points. If he has not done so, he has failed his burden.