jump to last post 1-50 of 69 discussions (310 posts)

THETRUTHHURTS2009(GARDNER) VS MARK KNOWLES(evolution guy)

  1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    Mark stated:
    I hereby challenge you to a one on one public debate here on these forums.

    You must first register a new account with your own name and where you live - then I will happily debate a single point with you.

    You may of course confer with your cronies - but only you may speak.

    I will happily agree some ground rules and see if we can find a single point to debate.


    I'm waiting!

    1. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hey, I sent you a message, please read it.

      1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
        GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks

    2. ANTI-CRUSADER profile image60
      ANTI-CRUSADERposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Debate on which topic. The topic of already debunked evolution?

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        And debunked religion.

        1. earnestshub profile image86
          earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Religion neither changes nor updates, it is stuck in time.
          Evolution gathers strength daily, supported by scientific cross referencing between all the sciences and the need to fit in all of them to be considered worthwhile theory.

          1. 0
            B52 Bomberposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            bull - loney

            1. earnestshub profile image86
              earnestshubposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Do go on. smile

  2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
    Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago

    http://hollywoodjesus.com/media/Bambi.gif

    1. 0
      Home Girlposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ---Who exactly is Bambi here?

      1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
        GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        mark big_smile

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        The one praying underneath the foot.

        1. alexandriaruthk profile image52
          alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          LOL

  3. tantrum profile image60
    tantrumposted 7 years ago

    I think this thread should be left alone to the persons involved !

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No - we are just deciding on the point of debate. We will start a new thread for the debate itself.

      We could also do with some IMPARTIAL volunteers to score the debate afterwards.

      1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
        GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Origins then evolution.

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Origins works for me.

        2. Cagsil profile image82
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Origins Then Evolution?

          These are one in the same, are they not?

          The Origins of existence is because the Universe Evolved Life?

          Isn't that it?

          1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
            GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Nope. How it all began(origins) After the first living cell(evolution) There is a huge difference.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Origins is fine with me. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life. But - what angle?

              1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
                GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                You must have a beginning before evolution can even occur.

      2. Cagsil profile image82
        Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Impartial Volunteer.....reporting as ORDERED? lol lol lol

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          LOL

          Well - I don't think we could count you as impartial. Do you? wink

          1. Cagsil profile image82
            Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I can be impartial. I have the ability to set aside emotion and weigh facts. Do I not? big_smile

            1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
              GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              no, you can't

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I am not so sure. He says he can be impartial and he certainly does not subscribe to my way of thinking so - maybe?.

                1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
                  GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  AEVANS maybe yes

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Does that mean we should ask AEvans if she thinks he would be OK?

              2. Cagsil profile image82
                Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Interesting. Okay. big_smile Enjoy.

      3. 0
        A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'll "prey' for you Mark, I know,I know a play on words,Rigggggggggggggggggggggggggggght!

      4. Friendlyword profile image61
        Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        OH OH... ME! ME! If I didn't miss it. Tell me where and when Mark.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image94
          Randy Godwinposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          How did you do as Hall Monitor?

    2. 0
      cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      yes.

      between Mark and TheTruthHurts' jillion trolls....

    3. 0
      Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      OK so why are you here? Once again, OK for you but no one else.  Why can't others destroy a thread the way you guys do?? huh? huh? huh?

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Deary me. I can see this is going to be fun. sad

        1. tantrum profile image60
          tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Don't think so. I'm not coming back in!
          smile

      2. tantrum profile image60
        tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        This is serious!  and you're stalking me ?
        Shame on you !

      3. Cagsil profile image82
        Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Why don't you read the thread for what it is?

        You jumping on Tantrum, and her being here is because she wants to see what's going to transpire. What is with you?

        Do you detest people in general?

        1. 0
          Deborah Sextonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No and I have many friends on the internet and praises in reference to my work. However, every time I start a thread, a forum or make a remark, she has attacked me along with her followers. They do this to stop forums.  so I am giving her the same treatment so she can see how it feels.Obviously she doesn't like it but expects me to. I am always nice to people and if they are nice, I become nicer. It's not about debating, it is about put downs and snide remarks. If you guys really wanted a voice here you would show respect.Showing respect is the only way to get it back. I didn't know you guys and showed respect till all the attacks made for no reason. Never any one on one talks.  No one wants to listen to someone who abuses them when they have a difference of views. We get what we give. So for any who want to attack me or tell me what to do..I'm an adult..then expect to get it back..PERIOD Why is this so difficult to understand?

  4. Black Lilly profile image59
    Black Lillyposted 7 years ago

    What's the topic of your debate?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Scroll up. sad

      1. Black Lilly profile image59
        Black Lillyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I did. So what's that "single point"?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          We are trying to decide that now. Scroll up. big_smile

          1. Black Lilly profile image59
            Black Lillyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            It takes a lot of time for you guys to make a decision... ok, I'll just wait and see what you come up with - exact phrase/question to start from wink

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Yes - this is crucial. We have to get the single point worked out first.

  5. Bovine Currency profile image60
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    how about the subjectivity of faith and the problem with negative proof fallacy.

  6. AEvans profile image71
    AEvansposted 7 years ago

    I will be more then happy to be unbiased read daily and score. smile Since I respect both people involved. smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I would accept AEvans as a judge. Would you Gardner?

      1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
        GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sure

  7. Bovine Currency profile image60
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    I can be impartial but I'm not sure you 2 will accept that.

    Have you got a topic yet?

    Origins but what angle.

    1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
      GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Before the first cell

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Before the first cell? That is a little obscure. And you need to turn it into a proposition.

        1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
          GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There are six different defintions of evolution:

          1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
          2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
          3. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
          4. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
          5. Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
          6. Microevolution Variations within kinds

          1. Black Lilly profile image59
            Black Lillyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Take No.4.

            1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
              GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              6 is the only one that can be observed and is proven.

              1. Black Lilly profile image59
                Black Lillyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                #4 is the one that provides a clash of completely different ideas.
                #1 and #3 are quite connected, though they would be interesting to read about (at least for me); #2 - too scientific, might be boring; #5 and #6 have quite substantial scientific proof - and I hope you're not going to debate whether that proof is right or wrong.

                Also have you decided when you're going to stop debating and draw some conclusions? I mean some timeframe or..?

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I suggest we agree on a certain number of responses.

                  1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
                    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Have to ever debated before? You present your case, then I ask questions then I present my case and you ask me question then you have a rebuttal then I have I rebuttal then closing statements.

          2. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            None if these are a proposition. And refuting any of these will not give any weight to the christian creation story - so what would be the point in debating them?

            Plus - some of these descriptions are incorrect. Some of them are purely hypothetical anyway. 

            Why don't you put forwards a proposition you wish to debate.

            1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
              GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              And so it begins. You have only two choices really All or one. "Big Bang" to now, or Darwin's evolution.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Pleas put forwards a proposition you wish to debate.

                1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
                  GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Resolve: Does Darwin’s evolutionary theory best support the evidence? You can do affirmative, I'll be Opposition. Stop Stalling.

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    I am not stalling. I was asking for a proposition.

  8. 0
    Justine76posted 7 years ago

    How on earth is it going to be SCORED? like, 1 point per verifiable statement of unrefutable FACT? if that could happen, this debate would be not even exist. (Is it possable to be impartial?)
    good luck guys, I am interested to watch, I hope it can happen with no name calling whatsoever...
    so the truth hurts' name is Gardner?

    1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
      GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yes maam

      1. 0
        Justine76posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        hmmm, irrelevant, I know. But interesting just the same.  smile

  9. Bovine Currency profile image60
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    ok well, I dont want to get involved on this I will observe here in, hoping it is kept a proper debate. 

    I will score the debate if you wish.  let me know otherwise, I will shut up and watch.  Good luck.

  10. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago

    AEvans - what do you think of Cagsill and Bovine currency as potential judges?

    1. AEvans profile image71
      AEvansposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      mmmmm... let me think for a few minutes and review a few threads with no disrespect to either one of them. smile

      1. 0
        Justine76posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        lol
        I vote for Aevans!!!
        Sorry guys, but I have read the other threads..I know Cags is as close to spock as you can get..but still..hes half human..and Bovine? I am sure he can use logic and all that..but if youve already made your mind up, your not impartial.  smile

        1. h.a.borcich profile image60
          h.a.borcichposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I agree - impartial parties would be best.

  11. AEvans profile image71
    AEvansposted 7 years ago

    Cagsil: Based on the comments I have read he is not at all argumentative however he has already made a decision on his beliefs so that would make him biased. Cagsil, no disrespect and please forgive me for pointing that out with all respect to your beliefs.

    Bovine: Based on reading a couple of threads is not argumentative either and is seeking understanding on both sides without causing any conflict which would make him unbiased.

    If I had to choose a second judge it would be Bovine smile

    1. h.a.borcich profile image60
      h.a.borcichposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Can I ask which threads you decided for Bovine? I am curious as I watch this debate forming.

    2. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I find you conclusion interesting. But, Thank you.

    3. Bovine Currency profile image60
      Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks for that.  Just to clarify, I am by no means an evolutionist.  I don't believe there was a beginning smile

  12. Cagsil profile image82
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    Actually people, I'm going to sit this out.

    You guys have fun.

    If you're going to dehumanize science, down to simply, integrated definitions, then this argument/debate will go nowhere.

    The Origins? This is to talk about How Existence Came To BE?

    The Evolution and all it's definitions(lumped together)? Is the explanation of How Existence Came To Be.

    Thus, leaves out any form of room for discussion. Therefore, I am out.

    Thank you for considering me, as a part of your charade, but I'll pass.

    1. AEvans profile image71
      AEvansposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I hope I didn't hurt your feelings sad

  13. Bovine Currency profile image60
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    In my defense and in the defense of a fair debate, I am no more partial than AEvans.  I am not an atheist but near enough.  AEvans is a Christian I believe but rather like myself, not full blooded.  In a debate with these two in oppostion I think two judges would be fair.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I will accept Bovine Currency - Gardner?

      I think we need at least 3 though. smile

      1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
        GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Fine

        1. AEvans profile image71
          AEvansposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Then we should also included Cagsil I believe we should have balance on both sides. smile

          1. AEvans profile image71
            AEvansposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Mark can both of you agree on Cagsil as well?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I can agree on Cagsil.

    2. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Can I judge too.  I don't like atheism or Christianity so I would be an excellent addition. big_smile

  14. Jerami profile image78
    Jeramiposted 7 years ago

    I think that it matters not who wins, If an uninterrupted debate can be carried to fulfillment; the rest of us might witness some TRUTH being exposed on both sides of the issue, as never experienced on Hub pages before.
       I am looking forward to this!  Good luck to you both!!!

  15. Bovine Currency profile image60
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    One of you needs to make an initial statement.  Perhaps you have not established all the ground rules?

  16. 0
    Justine76posted 7 years ago

    whats the scoring system?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      We have not got to that yet.

      1. 0
        Justine76posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        oh, oops. sorry. Ill stay out of it...
        smile

  17. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Is it too late to volunteer as a judge?
    I have no vested interest in either side of the argument but would offer myself as someone who can sort through the actual arguments.

    Perhaps there should be groundrules in terms of # of rebuttals and counterarguments allowed. Otherwise,this could take all day. Oh hell,what am I saying? It could take all century!
    MM

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LOL

      I accept you. Gardner? And then we can agree on a point of debate and some rules.

      1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
        GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Fine

  18. Bovine Currency profile image60
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    Cmon.  This needs to remain civil or it is not going to work. 

    Start with this forumla

    .... .... .... is .... ...  ... and this is why ..... .... point 1, 2....

  19. Bovine Currency profile image60
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    deborah just leave it.  Mark has posted 266 hubs, I would hardly call that spending his entire life on HP arguing with Christians.

  20. Sufidreamer profile image81
    Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago

    Maybe too late for nominating judges, but I wonder if Yoshi is about - he is trusted by both sides smile

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yoshi would be fine with me. Although - it seems Gardner here is in a hurry to get his questions on the table. wink_

    2. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed on that note. big_smile

  21. alexandriaruthk profile image52
    alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago

    Wow, I will just read the posts here. I will glad to know where I came from, LOL

    1. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The fact that you don't know is scary. lol

  22. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 7 years ago

    Gawd. This is already worse than the Biden/Palin debate.
    Don't MAKE me call Gwen Ifell in here, people!

  23. GardnerOsagie profile image62
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    Resolve: Biblical worldview vs Secular worldview which best explains the evidence.

  24. Sufidreamer profile image81
    Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago

    Trying to find Yoshi - he has not been about for a day or two. sad

    I would suggest that once we find a chairperson, they start up a separate thread and only they, Gardner and Knowles post, to keep it tidy.

    Another suggestion - I would like to propose that copy/pasted information must be properly quoted, attributed and explained in context.

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe you can take Yoshi's place until he comes back.  I haven't seen him lately either.  sad

      1. Sufidreamer profile image81
        Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Cheers, Sandra, but apart from time issues, I am not impartial enough to be chairperson. Anyone else have suggestions for a chairperson?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Paraglider?

          1. prettydarkhorse profile image62
            prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Paraglider is sleeping now, I will wake him up LOL

            1. Cagsil profile image82
              Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              lol lol lol

    2. GardnerOsagie profile image62
      GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed

    3. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I agree. We need to slow down as well LOL I am on GMT+1 and it is nearly dinner time. big_smile

      1. AEvans profile image71
        AEvansposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I also agree Mark go eat dinner. smile I will check back later and I am glad that both of you agreed on the topic.smile

      2. Sufidreamer profile image81
        Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Same here - it would be a shame to ruin this through haste - we need to set out the format, time limits for responses and set up the voting system - I suggest that we use standard format - the judges state whether they are for, against or undecided before the debate.

        We then take another vote at the end and the winner is he who gains the most votes big_smile

        Paraglider would be a good choice, if he is interested. smile

        Anyway, I am GMT +2 and dinner is ready - catch you all later smile

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Sounds good to me.

          And I will make the proposition.

          "Given the choice between a biblical explanation and a scientific explanation of the evidence of how humans came to be, I propose the scientific explanation using the theory of evolution, although I accept that this does not explain the origins of life as we currently understand that term"

          I am open to editing that as needed.

          1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
            GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Wrong mark you're already trying to state that you have science over Christians which is not true:
            Biblical worldview vs Secular worldview(evolution) which best explains the evidence.
            This is the most unbiased premise.

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              That is a question - not a proposition. I was making the proposition. But you go ahead how about:
              "Given the choice between a biblical explanation and a scientific explanation of the evidence of how humans came to be, I propose the biblical explanation."

              1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
                GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Given the choice between a biblical explanation(Genesis) and a secular (Darwin's evolutionary theory) explanation of the evidence of how humans came to be, I propose the biblical explanation

                1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                  Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  I m not prepare to argue in favor of a 190 year old out of date theory. wink

                  "Evolutionary theory" is acceptable.

  25. glendoncaba profile image82
    glendoncabaposted 7 years ago

    For all you guys with short memory here is a classic posted by Enderwiggins, which was moderated:
    "Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring" at

    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/16681#top

    A must read (rather long) for the two participants here.  I think Mark was there.

    Mark, whatever became of Enderwiggins?  The guy was good.  Just up and disappeared?

  26. alexandriaruthk profile image52
    alexandriaruthkposted 7 years ago

    I cant be a judge, my mom will not agree, my dad is atheist, my mom is confused, my sister is in the middle, what will I do, shall i read the bible, or just listen to the debate,,,

  27. GardnerOsagie profile image62
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    And we at least Set some tems before we all leave until tomorrow?

    We have the Topic!
    Biblical worldview vs Secular worldview which best explains the evidence.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You accept the proposition I have made as an acceptable title?

    2. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ...of the origins of human life.

      I propose that you both use the same resources.  Whatever Bible truth decides to use is the same one that Mark has to use and whatever book Mark uses for Evolution, then truth has to use also.

      1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
        GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'll also being using science and books not just the bible.

        1. 0
          sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Okay that's good. smile  But you have to let us know which books you will be using.

          Also before the real debate begins, I think you should both gather up your books you will be using and agree that you cannot submit another book for consideration after the debate has begun.

          So pick your books wisely. Agreed?

  28. Bovine Currency profile image60
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    Hi everyone, I am GMT + 8 but I think you know I am always here anyway.  If you need to get started without me, I will play catch up.  I am assuming this will not be a major issue, this debate could take a while.  Just wanted to note the time difference.  So you are leaving it for how long?

    I agree paraglider would be a good chairperson.

    This topic needs to be set pretty soon though, it shouldn't be so difficult in my opinion.

  29. Bovine Currency profile image60
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    regarding comment above mentioned common source.  Good idea.  Perhaps each party could propose common information sources to be researched for a brief period before debate is initiated?

    I dont know if the entire bible and the library of darwin would be a tight enough bank of information.

  30. 0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    The Topic:


    Biblical worldview (Genesis) vs Secular worldview (Evolution) which best explains the evidence of the origins of human life?

    Can you both agree?

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No. We need a proposition not a question.

      1. Cagsil profile image82
        Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Then don't put a question ? mark at the end of it. And, make it a statement proposed.

      2. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, then since truth challenged you, then let the proposition be:

        Biblical theory better describes the origins of human life as opposed to Darwin's theory. 

        Agreed?

        1. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          No. I am not interested in defending a 190 year old, out-of-date theory that has been supplanted many times.

          1. Cagsil profile image82
            Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Biblical theory better describes the origins of human life as opposed to Science.

            Hmmm.....Agreed?

            1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
              GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Wrong.
              Biblical theory better describes the origins of human life as opposed to Evolution Theory.

              1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Sloppy, but acceptable.

                Now who are the judges again?

                What are the ground rules and references we may use? I suggest two  online references each. Makes things simpler.

                1. 0
                  sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Biblical theory better describes how human life came to be as opposed to Evolutionary theory. 

                  truth agreed to this proposal.

                  He also agreed that you two would use the same resources.  Whatever bible or science book he uses you will use and what you use to reference he will also use.

                  Also, once your links have been submitted you cannot submit another link (book source) after the debate has begun. 

                  Can you agree?

                  1. Mark Knowles profile image60
                    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Why are you changing the wording?

                    We currently have this as a proposition:

                    "Biblical theory better describes the origins of human life as opposed to Evolution Theory."

                    Which we have both agreed to. We should both propose two online resources and both are free to use them.

                  2. GardnerOsagie profile image62
                    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Can we reserve to right to visual aides(ie video evidence), As for using the same book fine, but if there is a proven lie in the book we should be allow to refute it, citing refutation sources. Other than that I agree.

            2. 0
              lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              ya

          2. 0
            sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Biblical theory better describes how human life came to be as opposed to Evolutionary theory.

            1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
              GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Agreed, You can be a judge!

    2. GardnerOsagie profile image62
      GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      of life in general because evolution claims we are all connected with animals.

      1. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I am not interested in arguing the "origins," of life. That is miles away from what we agreed.

        "Given the choice between a biblical explanation(Genesis) and a secular ( evolutionary theory) explanation of the evidence of how humans came to be, I propose the biblical explanation."

        Is a fine proposition

  31. Bovine Currency profile image60
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    So have we worked it all out?

    1. 0
      lyricsingrayposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I moooooo You Bovine big_smile

      1. Bovine Currency profile image60
        Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I moooox you too Mz.Lyrics

  32. Sufidreamer profile image81
    Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago

    Just as an injerjection and to save time, here is a useful format.

    Before starting, maybe we should establish each of these points.

       1. The topic of the debate.
       2. The opponents of the debate, and what positions they will argue.
       3. The scope of the debate.
       4. The length of the debate, in number of rounds.
       5. Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.
       6. The maximum length of each statement.
       7. The time limit between statements.
       8. The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.
       9. The starting date of the debate.
      10. Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

    Full explanation at: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=85871

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      That is good.

  33. Cagsil profile image82
    Cagsilposted 7 years ago

    I'm not taking part. I'm not to be a judge in this case.

    I respectfully decline. big_smile

  34. Bovine Currency profile image60
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    I will be offline soon and back tomorrow (my tomorrow).  I hope you guys get it together because I am not really confident on this going ahead.  You still have me though.  It is a worthy venture.  I am sore and tired now so I will be back refreshed.  Good luck all.

    1. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Later Bovine

  35. GardnerOsagie profile image62
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    I will be using online sources to every one can check it out for themselves

  36. GardnerOsagie profile image62
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    Hello?

    1. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Okay good.

      Just waiting for your guys' submissions.

      Only 2.  And you both have to agree on the credibility of the links sources.

      If you guys cannot agree, I propose you allow the judges to decide whether the sources are acceptable or not.

      ie: I don't find blog sources to be acceptable.

  37. Mark Knowles profile image60
    Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago
  38. Bovine Currency profile image60
    Bovine Currencyposted 7 years ago

    Hi,

    me again.  really, really going now. back is stuffed.

    just wanted to say, good work on the sources.

    I like the panning out.  Keep it goin.

  39. GardnerOsagie profile image62
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago
    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I cannot accept either of those as anything other than personal opinion. Certainly not reputable.

      Are you not intending to use a bible?

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I guess something happened to truth. sad

        1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
          GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry I had to step out for a minute.
          But just as I thought Mark crys fowls at sorces that pulls apart his "case" point by point.

          Talk.Origins:
          Deception by Omission
          http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp

          1. 0
            sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Well let's not discuss that yet because you could also do the same for his.

            So, when it comes to the credibility of the source, let them be sources that are not opinionated.  This is why he asked if you plan to use the Bible. 

            Besides, it would be better to choose sources that are not about what other people think about a subject but rather a direct source ie; the bible or theory of plate tectonics.

            1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
              GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              What's the point of debate? We have differing opinions and different interpretations of the facts that's why we use sources that support our claims. I'm I the only real debater here?

              1. 0
                sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                I don't understand your argument. Are you debating a position of someone else or for yourself?

                1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
                  GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Myself, with proof that backs up my claims.

          2. Mark Knowles profile image60
            Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            But I haven't made a case. And I have not cryed fowl.

            I am questioning your sources. They are purely personal opinion and surely not acceptable as a reference?

            You are making the biblical case - yet do not intend to use a bible?

            I am confused.

            sad

  40. chambersgirl21 profile image61
    chambersgirl21posted 7 years ago

    Where is sooner? he would want to watch.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I am sure that Gardner will want to confer, and that is acceptable also.

  41. marinealways24 profile image61
    marinealways24posted 7 years ago

    Why not just use faith and logic as the judge. It's pretty simple to tell when someone is using logic or faith in their statement.

  42. chambersgirl21 profile image61
    chambersgirl21posted 7 years ago

    Christian Scientists are not really scientists only Atheist Scientists are real scientists. Its in the agenda.

    1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
      GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Yep!

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Try finding some resources that he will accept.  The bible is one of them so that is a very good start. 

        If you guys cannot agree then allow the judges to decide.

        Since Evans is a Christian,
        Sufi is more eastern philosophy
        Para is a rationalist
        and I just go by research with verifiable and observable facts...

        This is a pretty good panel of judges to decide.

        If you want to through in the towel now then you never had a chance.

        Try using a source from let's say a professor at Notre Dame.  Meaning if you want to use another persons research as a source, you need to find one who is credible enough to be included as valuable. 

        Does that make better sense and seem more fair to you?

  43. Dolores Monet profile image91
    Dolores Monetposted 7 years ago

    Hey - I can be impartial to! I have the ability to emote and can set aside facts!
    (Actually, this proposed debate sounds very interesting)

  44. GardnerOsagie profile image62
    GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago

    I'm done for today I'll check back tomorrow, but I doubt this will go anywhere sad

    1. tantrum profile image60
      tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Very Messy !

  45. tantrum profile image60
    tantrumposted 7 years ago
    1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
      GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I concur!

  46. Sufidreamer profile image81
    Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago

    Don't know if it helps, Gardner, but have you thought about the Discovery website. They are pretty much the prime movers of ID and have a mix of opinion and creation science.

    http://www.discovery.org

    http://www.discovery.org/a/2177

  47. chambersgirl21 profile image61
    chambersgirl21posted 7 years ago

    I really don't see this going anywhere. Aren't both parties able to cross reference. The bible and God are whats being refuted. I think the Bible should be cross referenced by both parties as a freebie- and then two argument supportive sites for their case. Seems Mark and Gardener will use the bible collectively.

    1. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sounds fair smile

      At the end of the day, if somebody uses an opinion site with little basis, then the other debater should be able to tear it apart - it will then be up to the judges to decide smile

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Sounds fair to me. smile

      2. Mark Knowles profile image60
        Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Not a problem here.

        So - now we have judges, w e need a format.

        Gardner is making the claim:

        "Biblical theory better describes how human life came to be as opposed to Evolutionary theory."

        And I am prepared to refute that as and when the time comes.

    2. GardnerOsagie profile image62
      GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I can agree to this.

  48. chambersgirl21 profile image61
    chambersgirl21posted 7 years ago

    and where the heck is Sooner Than Later? Gardener & Mark, you should keep your cool- in any case. This could be fun if both parties are respectful. No matter the outcome.

    1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
      GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Sooner was banned for 7 days 8 days ago.

  49. chambersgirl21 profile image61
    chambersgirl21posted 7 years ago

    for what? We should ask moderators to let him back.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Why? He will not be talking part will he?

  50. chambersgirl21 profile image61
    chambersgirl21posted 7 years ago

    No, I dont' think so as per the rules. But does he scare you? I've seen you two go at it before. Never seen you go deep with him at all. I'm actually surprised this may go some where.

    1. Mark Knowles profile image60
      Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      LOLOLOL


      Why would he scare me?

      He has the Intellectual capacity of a dog turd. Nothing scary about that. wink

      Would you feel better if he was here?

      1. chambersgirl21 profile image61
        chambersgirl21posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Haha- I think he beats your intellectual capacity hands down. He seemed to have unrefutable information that you could only respond with, "get a dictionary".

        Is that your intellectual capacity?

        1. GardnerOsagie profile image62
          GardnerOsagieposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          zing zing, but I digress.

        2. tantrum profile image60
          tantrumposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol thanks for the laughs !
          now you can go on cleaning, chambersgirl

        3. Mark Knowles profile image60
          Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I usually recommend people look words up in a dictionary when they are using them incorrectly. Sorry - I am sure you hate to learn new things as well. I don't blame you. Stick to the easy stuff huh? Good for you. wink

          1. chambersgirl21 profile image61
            chambersgirl21posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You used the phrase when he slammed "macro evolution"? I had to go look it up, not him. maybe you?

            1. Mark Knowles profile image60
              Mark Knowlesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              LOL

              Is this supposed to be stopping the debate?

    2. 0
      sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Not to be rude, but if you have nothing to offer as far as setting up the criteria for the debate then find another thread.

    3. Sufidreamer profile image81
      Sufidreamerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hehe - wouldn't worry about the personal attacks - if either resorts to that, I am pretty sure that the judges will take that into account. It will be a clean fight.

      BTW Sandra - I cannot be a judge. I am a biologist who writes for a science site, including attacks on Intelligent Design. I would find it hard to be impartial and that would not be fair to Gardner smile

      1. 0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Isn't it the point though.  To have a variety of judges to discuss amongst ourselves and decide.

        It's like having a jury decided the fate of a white man with an all black jury.  (sorry if that is a bad example, I mean nothing by it other than the intent and purpose. )

        1. chambersgirl21 profile image61
          chambersgirl21posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There you have it. I think Surfi and Sooner should be judges. Sooner was an atheist/scientist turned Christian.

Closed to reply
 
working