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EIAF became instantly silent on the issue of human evolution after I presented evidence that falsified each of his out-of-date and so-called "proofs."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
