The debate question submitted by EIAF (acronym for "Evolution is a Fact") was
"Does geology prove faunal succession?" Smokescreens and sidetracks aside, the burden of proof lied on the evolution side, as stated. Who won?
Does geology indeed prove faunal succession?
Yes -- in the eye of the evolutionist beholder. But if you take an objective look at the data, the evidence, the facts, the geology -- No. The affirmative stand and the negative stand each have insufficient data for a final case of proof, interpretations aside. No water-tight case of logic can be made for either side, as was seen.
However, the preponderance of logic applied to the evidence, I personally maintain is in favor of the position that geology does indeed in no way prove faunal succession. But that is merely my position. What does this mean?
This means that the original posit by EIAF is false. My position is that geology disproves faunal succession. EIAF did not need to negate my position in order to win in this exchange. However ... he did need to affirm his own position ... a task at which he failed.
Geology does not finally prove faunal succession. Go back over the exchanges to see this.
EIAF became instantly silent on the issue of human evolution after I presented evidence that falsified each of his out-of-date and so-called "proofs." EIAF failed to explain the out-of-sync nature of each and every fossil sequence he described to the audience, which he held up as his "proofs."
EIAF preferred to use big-sounding words, pseudo-professional language, long-winded tirades, personal character attacks and rhetoric in general ... as opposed to logical and coherent case establishment. It was always difficult to blow away the fluff and somehow to find the meat of each of his arguments, in order to discuss them meaningfully. This exposes the weakness of his position in the end. My attacks were only on the statements that EIAF made -- not on his personal intelligence or integrity. Stick to the topic. Stick to the matters at hand. Any efforts at distraction from these betray the weakness of an argument. Each EIAF argument was such.
Readers may think that defending the positive assertion may have given EIAF an unfair disadvantage, since it has often been said that science cannot logically falsify anything. This is a myth. This I shall prove.
I challenge EIAF to another debate then, this time with my own positive assertion that "DNA Information proves Intelligent Design." Same rules. Same schedule. Same advantages and disadvantages, only with the tables turned. If I had the advantage in the last go-round, EIAF should logically then have the advantage in the next proposal. I stand on the positive assertion of the above statement. As with his embarrassment on human evolution, if EIAF is silent regarding this challenge, I pronounce this as concession of his defeat. If he accepts the challenge however, every reader will see ... that belief in evolution is belief in a sci-fi fantasy at best or a truth-suppressing conspiracy at worst.
The three questions and discussion following from the original debate strand, I propose to continue concurrent with the new and second debate strand. EIAF is afraid of the truth. He's afraid of change. I'm not here to tell you how this is all going to end. I'm here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to show these people something he does not want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without boundaries, without rules, a world without him. Where we go from here, is a choice I leave with you.
- Dr J
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Evolution is a Fact's Closing Statement
Dr Jackson, this debate has drawn to a close and readers who take the time to read the debate in its entirety will note that you have not even hit the surface in responding to my last rebuttal, and have left several facts unaccounted for, each of which individually point to faunal succession while disproving your global flood;
The disappearance of fauna over 10kg between the Cretaceous and Palogene (with gradual succession of larger fauna above this), the large gap in appearance between creatures filling similar niches (namely fish vs whales, aquatic reptiles vs aquatic mammals, large dinosaurs vs large mammals, etc), how Ostracoderms (freshwater variations included) appear in the lower layers (you insist that bottom dwelling sea life were the first to go) and how Teloest fish don't show up until the Triassic (despite existing on sea bottoms today), Fauna in the upper layers that better represent modern fauna, animal dens and burrows throughout the layers (animals can't create dens and burrows while they're being drowned), and why rapid and intact preservation (which happens during a flood) is the exception as opposed to the rule.
Nor have you explained why we find no Dinosaur fossils with spear points, or animals that fall outside of the usual same basic body plan, or remnants of human civilization until the very top layers. You never even bothered to account for the gradual succession in brain size (from 420 CC – 1350 CC) and other gradual "ape to human" characteristics between the hominids, nor account for the fact that we find these fossils in the same parts of the world where we find the great apes. I forgot to include the link to the Newsweek, 3/19/07 article you insist help disqualify them as our ancestors. I hope readers take the time to read this in full.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17542627/site/newsweek/page/4/
Readers will also notice your continued dependence on dishonest quote mines (both using articles as well as my own statements). In one quote I am alluding to the entire geological record throughout the world and how we shouldn't expect sediment and erosion to occur everywhere and at the same time, and in another I am talking about one portion of the world. In one minute I am talking about the uniformity of the overall sequence of fauna (reptiles->archaeopteryx->modern birds) then next I am delving into specific species and how its impossible to know which species evolved into the next (but rather, we know they are transitional because of their features). You quote the convenient elements of these statements and proceed to assert that they are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I have never mentioned a global flood on Mars and for some reason you insist that I believe in one.
You continually attack a National Geographic article (again, a popular magazine, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal) as a detriment to evolutionary theory and give no references in regards to which transitional forms you refer to, where you come up with these dates (120 Mya, 150 mya, etc), nor showcase any peer-reviewed works that claim that these specific fossils are specifically ancestral to Archaeopteryx. Given that you only used 753 of your allotted 2,000 word limit, how difficult would it be to delve into specifics? This method of debate is juvenile at best and you are once again repeating the "x must evolve into y" straw man argument. Any Paleontology source will show you that Theropods first appear in the Triassic, whereas Archaeopteryx doesn't appear until the Jurassic (meaning they are not "out of order").
To put your quote mines into perspective, what are the chances that after reading the statement below, you wouldn't accuse me of taking the Bible out of context and coming to a faulty conclusion?
"The Bible is a horrendous book; its remedy for disobedient children is that "all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" (Deuteronomy 21:18) and sets the stage for 2 millennia of bigotry towards females with chauvinistic rules, including but not limited to rules that tell us that women who give birth to male children "shall be unclean seven days" whereas after birth to a female child, she "shall be unclean two weeks, as in her impurity" (Leviticus 12)."
You have made up your own Geology by making Turbidity currents the cause for fossil destruction in the Cambrian, despite the fact that they can be checked for and yet none are found (the sort of ad hoc explanation I predicted in my first rebuttal). Furthermore, they can only account for the destruction of life among slopes and other formations where mudslides can drift from. A mudslide wouldn't account for burial along flat abyssal plains for the same reason we don't have avalanches in Kansas.
Any field Geologist will tell you that water-logged sunken tree trunks can indeed cross-cut layers of mud (gravity being a primary factor), and result in what creationists would define as polystrate, inasmuch as a tree surrounded by rapid deposit. I have never denied that floods cause rapid deposition. Its common knowledge that floods happen and always have, though it never ceases to amaze me how creationists automatically imply that any trace of a flood having occurred automatically means 'their' flood.
This has been another example of Creationist mischaracterization of Geology, Biology, Paleontology, and Anthropology in areas Creationists find inconvenient. Your methods of debate have been dishonest at best, though I suppose that's what one must do when trying to defend an indefensible position. But these methods won't turn fence sitters and certainly won't change anyone's mind. I would postulate that even a few of the "convinced creationists" that read the entire debate will begin to doubt you (and it certainly doesn't help that you thought whale blow holes were located behind their brains). Perhaps if Creationism ever comes up with an actual science as opposed to continually mischaracterizing what "evolutionists say," it can be taken a bit more seriously. Nothing about Creation Science holds up to scientific scrutiny.
The disappearance of fauna over 10kg between the Cretaceous and Palogene (with gradual succession of larger fauna above this), the large gap in appearance between creatures filling similar niches (namely fish vs whales, aquatic reptiles vs aquatic mammals, large dinosaurs vs large mammals, etc), how Ostracoderms (freshwater variations included) appear in the lower layers (you insist that bottom dwelling sea life were the first to go) and how Teloest fish don't show up until the Triassic (despite existing on sea bottoms today), Fauna in the upper layers that better represent modern fauna, animal dens and burrows throughout the layers (animals can't create dens and burrows while they're being drowned), and why rapid and intact preservation (which happens during a flood) is the exception as opposed to the rule.
Nor have you explained why we find no Dinosaur fossils with spear points, or animals that fall outside of the usual same basic body plan, or remnants of human civilization until the very top layers. You never even bothered to account for the gradual succession in brain size (from 420 CC – 1350 CC) and other gradual "ape to human" characteristics between the hominids, nor account for the fact that we find these fossils in the same parts of the world where we find the great apes. I forgot to include the link to the Newsweek, 3/19/07 article you insist help disqualify them as our ancestors. I hope readers take the time to read this in full.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17542627/site/newsweek/page/4/
Readers will also notice your continued dependence on dishonest quote mines (both using articles as well as my own statements). In one quote I am alluding to the entire geological record throughout the world and how we shouldn't expect sediment and erosion to occur everywhere and at the same time, and in another I am talking about one portion of the world. In one minute I am talking about the uniformity of the overall sequence of fauna (reptiles->archaeopteryx->modern birds) then next I am delving into specific species and how its impossible to know which species evolved into the next (but rather, we know they are transitional because of their features). You quote the convenient elements of these statements and proceed to assert that they are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I have never mentioned a global flood on Mars and for some reason you insist that I believe in one.
You continually attack a National Geographic article (again, a popular magazine, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal) as a detriment to evolutionary theory and give no references in regards to which transitional forms you refer to, where you come up with these dates (120 Mya, 150 mya, etc), nor showcase any peer-reviewed works that claim that these specific fossils are specifically ancestral to Archaeopteryx. Given that you only used 753 of your allotted 2,000 word limit, how difficult would it be to delve into specifics? This method of debate is juvenile at best and you are once again repeating the "x must evolve into y" straw man argument. Any Paleontology source will show you that Theropods first appear in the Triassic, whereas Archaeopteryx doesn't appear until the Jurassic (meaning they are not "out of order").
To put your quote mines into perspective, what are the chances that after reading the statement below, you wouldn't accuse me of taking the Bible out of context and coming to a faulty conclusion?
"The Bible is a horrendous book; its remedy for disobedient children is that "all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die" (Deuteronomy 21:18) and sets the stage for 2 millennia of bigotry towards females with chauvinistic rules, including but not limited to rules that tell us that women who give birth to male children "shall be unclean seven days" whereas after birth to a female child, she "shall be unclean two weeks, as in her impurity" (Leviticus 12)."
You have made up your own Geology by making Turbidity currents the cause for fossil destruction in the Cambrian, despite the fact that they can be checked for and yet none are found (the sort of ad hoc explanation I predicted in my first rebuttal). Furthermore, they can only account for the destruction of life among slopes and other formations where mudslides can drift from. A mudslide wouldn't account for burial along flat abyssal plains for the same reason we don't have avalanches in Kansas.
Any field Geologist will tell you that water-logged sunken tree trunks can indeed cross-cut layers of mud (gravity being a primary factor), and result in what creationists would define as polystrate, inasmuch as a tree surrounded by rapid deposit. I have never denied that floods cause rapid deposition. Its common knowledge that floods happen and always have, though it never ceases to amaze me how creationists automatically imply that any trace of a flood having occurred automatically means 'their' flood.
This has been another example of Creationist mischaracterization of Geology, Biology, Paleontology, and Anthropology in areas Creationists find inconvenient. Your methods of debate have been dishonest at best, though I suppose that's what one must do when trying to defend an indefensible position. But these methods won't turn fence sitters and certainly won't change anyone's mind. I would postulate that even a few of the "convinced creationists" that read the entire debate will begin to doubt you (and it certainly doesn't help that you thought whale blow holes were located behind their brains). Perhaps if Creationism ever comes up with an actual science as opposed to continually mischaracterizing what "evolutionists say," it can be taken a bit more seriously. Nothing about Creation Science holds up to scientific scrutiny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)