THETRUTHHURTS2009(GARDNER) VS MARK KNOWLES(evolution guy)

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 69 discussions (310 posts)

59
GardnerOsagieposted 16 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!
report
1. 0
  Deborah Sextonposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Hey, I sent you a message, please read it.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks
  report
2. 57
  ANTI-CRUSADERposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Debate on which topic. The topic of already debunked evolution?
  report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  And debunked religion.
  report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
  0
  B52 Bomberposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  bull - loney
  report
  70
  earnestshubposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Do go on.
  report
61
Ron Montgomeryposted 16 years ago
report
1. 0
  Home Girlposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  ---Who exactly is Bambi here?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  mark
  report
  61
  Ron Montgomeryposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The one praying underneath the foot.
  report
  64
  alexandriaruthkposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  report
60
tantrumposted 16 years ago
I think this thread should be left alone to the persons involved !
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Origins then evolution.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Origins works for me.
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin 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?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Nope. How it all began(origins) After the first living cell(evolution) There is a huge difference.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Origins is fine with me. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origins of life. But - what angle?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You must have a beginning before evolution can even occur.
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Impartial Volunteer.....reporting as ORDERED?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  
  Well - I don't think we could count you as impartial. Do you?
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I can be impartial. I have the ability to set aside emotion and weigh facts. Do I not?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  no, you can't
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin 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?.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  AEVANS maybe yes
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Does that mean we should ask AEvans if she thinks he would be OK?
  report
  80
  AEvansposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  ask her.
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Interesting. Okay. Enjoy.
  report
  0
  A Texanposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I'll "prey' for you Mark, I know,I know a play on words,Rigggggggggggggggggggggggggggght!
  report
  59
  Friendlywordposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  OH OH... ME! ME! If I didn't miss it. Tell me where and when Mark.
  report
  59
  Randy Godwinposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  How did you do as Hall Monitor?
  report
2. 0
  cosetteposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  yes.
  
  between Mark and TheTruthHurts' jillion trolls....
  report
3. 0
  Deborah Sextonposted 16 years agoin 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?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Deary me. I can see this is going to be fun.
  report
  60
  tantrumposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Don't think so. I'm not coming back in!
  report
  60
  tantrumposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  This is serious! and you're stalking me ?
  Shame on you !
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin 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?
  report
  0
  Deborah Sextonposted 16 years agoin 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?
  report
60
Black Lillyposted 16 years ago
What's the topic of your debate?
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Scroll up.
  report
  60
  Black Lillyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I did. So what's that "single point"?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  We are trying to decide that now. Scroll up.
  report
  60
  Black Lillyposted 16 years agoin 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
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yes - this is crucial. We have to get the single point worked out first.
  report
60
Bovine Currencyposted 16 years ago
how about the subjectivity of faith and the problem with negative proof fallacy.
report
80
AEvansposted 16 years ago
I will be more then happy to be unbiased read daily and score. Since I respect both people involved.
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I would accept AEvans as a judge. Would you Gardner?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Sure
  report
60
Bovine Currencyposted 16 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.
report
1. 59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Before the first cell
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Before the first cell? That is a little obscure. And you need to turn it into a proposition.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin 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
  report
  60
  Black Lillyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Take No.4.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  6 is the only one that can be observed and is proven.
  report
  60
  Black Lillyposted 16 years agoin 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..?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I suggest we agree on a certain number of responses.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  We first need to agree on a proposition that we are going to debate.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  And so it begins. You have only two choices really All or one. "Big Bang" to now, or Darwin's evolution.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Pleas put forwards a proposition you wish to debate.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Resolve: Does Darwin’s evolutionary theory best support the evidence? You can do affirmative, I'll be Opposition. Stop Stalling.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I am not stalling. I was asking for a proposition.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That won't work. I know species change, and you're of speaking micro-evoltuion(variation within a kind) which we already agree on.
  
  Resolve: Does Darwin’s evolutionary theory best support the evidence?
  Stop stalling or are you afraid you don't have enough proof
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Then suggest a proposition that is not vague - other wise neither of us will be able to defend or attack it.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Dude - I am not stalling. We need a proposition - not a question.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  A Question can be the proposition. Have you ever debated before?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Of course. About a million ears ago. But - I am trying to find a point that is worth debating. Darwin's theory of evolution has been refined considerably since he wrote it and I do not appreciate you attacking me.
  
  What has proof got to do with a debate?
  
  I thought you wanted to debate an issue or a proposition?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  A question will work just fine, I don't all day for you to play semantics. Let's go.
  
  Lincoln/Douglas Debate Format
  1AC (first Affirmative Constructive) –
  A good introduction that attracts the audiences attention and interest in the topic
  Clearly state the resolution
  Clearly state each of your contentions
  Support with reason and evidence
  Conclude effectively
  
  Cross Ex of the Aff by the Neg –
  You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning
  Be courteous
  Face the audience
  
  1NC (first Negative Constructive) –
  A good introduction that attracts the audiences attention and interest in the topic
  Clearly state the Negative’s position on the topic
  Clearly state the Negative’s Observations
  Support with reason and evidence
  Attack and question the Affirmative’s Contentions/evidence
  Conclude effectively
  
  Cross Ex of the Neg by the Aff –
  You ask questions – have a strategy or at the very least a direction to your questioning
  Be courteous
  
  Rebuttal Speeches – No new arguments are allowed – new evidence, analysis is ok
  
  1AR (first Affirmative Rebuttal) -
  Respond to the Neg Observations – show how they are not as strong/relevant as the Aff Contentions
  Rebuild the Aff case
  
  NR (Negative Rebuttal) –
  Respond to latest Affirmative arguments
  Make your final case to the audience that the Neg position is superior to the Aff
  Try and convince the audience the Aff has failed to carry the burden of proof
  Summarize the debate and conclude effectively and ask for the audience to agree with the Neg position
  
  2AR (second Affirmative Rebuttal) –
  Respond to final Negative arguments
  Summarize the debate and show the audience how the Aff position is superior – and the Aff has
  carried the burden of proof
  
  Negative closing-
  Conclude effectively.
  acstaff.bloomu.edu
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Please stop attacking me. I am not stalling, but do not wish to attempt to defend a 190 year old out-of-date theory against a massive array of pre-prepared questions.
  
  I also do not see the point in this particular question as it relates to the religious beliefs that you wish to put forward.
  
  We also need to find and agree on a reasonable number of judges.
  
  What is the rush?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No one is attacking you, you're too sensitive. Stop playing. You've spent your entire life in on HP attacking and belittling Christians. Your claims range from “I have facts and science, “always saying “evolution has proving us wrong” You claim to be a scientist. Prove it. Bring your augments and facts to that support your claims.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Chill out. Give me a proposition that we can agree to debate.
  
  There is no rush either. This could take days to do.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  How about:
  
  "Evolutionary biology proves that the bible is not to be taken literally"?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Does Evolutionary biology proves that the bible is not to be taken literally
  Okay Let's go
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, let's go- there is an AGREEMENT!
  
  "Evolutionary biology proves that the bible is not to be taken literally"?
  
  Mark you posed it and Gardner Agreed!
  
  So, can we start here?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Biblical worldview vs Secular worldview which best explains the evidence.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That works for me also
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Alright. The debate is about biblical vs. secular world views to best explain the evidence of ???
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Works for me.
  
  So - who are the judges again?
  
  AEvans
  Bovine Currency
  Cagsill
  Yoshi (if he wanst to)
  Sanra Rinck
  
  Gardner?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  AEvans-yes
  Bovine- yes
  Cags-No
  Yoshi Yes
  Sandra-maybe, if she can really be unbiased yes
  report
  66
  prettydarkhorseposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Mr Mark Knowles, Can I be a judge too!
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Fine with me. But Gardner has to agree also.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed to replace Sandra
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  pretty biased since you know I am not christian but also not atheist.
  report
  69
  Make Moneyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You are not serious about having Bovine Currency and Cagsill as judges are you? Both of them seem to take part in near every attack thread in here.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You do have a point!
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  But you accepted all of the judges.
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Mark........Gardner was responding to a comment made by Make Money?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Your sources are the ones that are not credible. You have and almost everyone here has a preconceived notion that Christians know nothing about science and science doesn't support the bible, I contend to refute that idea and reveal the truth, that's why I agreed to this debate, can you handle that?
  
  My basis is the bible(obviously) yours is evolution. We a supposed to reveal our explanation of the facts. And let the people decide whose case is most convincing. Come on this is Debate 101
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  What?
  
  But you do not list a bible as a reference?
  
  I am confused.
  
  Sorry - those 2 websites you added as "resources" are personal opinions. Nothing more.
  
  Debate 101?
  
  Sorry - I am not used to this type of debate where we just attack each other.
  
  Are you saying you do not accept my sources as acceptable?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  It's all personal opinion! Stop attacking me!
  Your soucres are not acceptable
  
  Talk.Origins:
  Deception by Omission
  http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  But I listed an online King James bible as a resource, along with a reputable scientific website.
  
  I am not attacking you, merely questioning your resources.
  
  You have lost me. I thought you wanted a debate?
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That has got to hurt!
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  "reputable scientific website" please. I knew you would do this that's why I wanted to speed things along, but you kept dragging it out until we got to this stand still. You never really wanted to debate. I knew it!
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I gave you one. I rather we end this end this today it doesn't take this long.
  
  Does Darwin’s evolutionary theory best support the evidence?
  
  or
  
  What best defines reality Theism or Atheism?
  
  Let's now set some terms.
  report
  60
  Bovine Currencyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I would like to make a suggestion,
  
  to get this started , how about this,
  
  "The weight of evidence in Darwins theory of evolution is a valid proof that god does not exist"
  
  Can you both agree on that. I have tried to draw the general feeling of both sides.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I like this one - better than the one I suggested.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That's too biased you have to assume the interpretation of the facts by evolutionist is the only interpretation. Biblical worldview vs Secular worldview which best explains the evidence.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  But - that would be the debate. It is up to you to make your point.
  
  You would be arguing the biblical interpretation.
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I think before you two can debate. You would first have to define god (all yours truthhurts) and you would also have to clearly define a starting point.
  
  I would suggest that if the debate is about the origins of life, you start (not at the big bang) but start with the How the Earth was made, what life is 'made' of including elements and development of water on the planet, the origins of water etc...
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  How about:
  
  "Does the Christian God as defined in the bible, exist?"
  report
  78
  glendoncabaposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I'm rooting for you dude but you need to calm down and hammer out a proposition which is not a question, since that makes the subject more approachable. Eg: Darwin's evolutionary theory does not provide valid support for the biological evidence.
  report
0
Justine76posted 16 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?
report
1. 59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yes maam
  report
  0
  Justine76posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  hmmm, irrelevant, I know. But interesting just the same.
  report
60
Bovine Currencyposted 16 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.
report
58
Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago
AEvans - what do you think of Cagsill and Bovine currency as potential judges?
report
1. 80
  AEvansposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  mmmmm... let me think for a few minutes and review a few threads with no disrespect to either one of them.
  report
  0
  Justine76posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  
  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.
  report
  60
  h.a.borcichposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I agree - impartial parties would be best.
  report
80
AEvansposted 16 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
report
1. 60
  h.a.borcichposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Can I ask which threads you decided for Bovine? I am curious as I watch this debate forming.
  report
2. 69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I find you conclusion interesting. But, Thank you.
  report
3. 60
  Bovine Currencyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks for that. Just to clarify, I am by no means an evolutionist. I don't believe there was a beginning
  report
69
Cagsilposted 16 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.
report
1. 80
  AEvansposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I hope I didn't hurt your feelings
  report
60
Bovine Currencyposted 16 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.
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I will accept Bovine Currency - Gardner?
  
  I think we need at least 3 though.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Fine
  report
  80
  AEvansposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Then we should also included Cagsil I believe we should have balance on both sides.
  report
  80
  AEvansposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Mark can both of you agree on Cagsil as well?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I can agree on Cagsil.
  report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Can I judge too. I don't like atheism or Christianity so I would be an excellent addition.
  report
58
Jeramiposted 16 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!!!
report
60
Bovine Currencyposted 16 years ago
One of you needs to make an initial statement. Perhaps you have not established all the ground rules?
report
0
Justine76posted 16 years ago
whats the scoring system?
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  We have not got to that yet.
  report
  0
  Justine76posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  oh, oops. sorry. Ill stay out of it...
  report
72
Mighty Momposted 16 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
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  
  I accept you. Gardner? And then we can agree on a point of debate and some rules.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Fine
  report
60
Bovine Currencyposted 16 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....
report
60
Bovine Currencyposted 16 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.
report
86
Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago
Maybe too late for nominating judges, but I wonder if Yoshi is about - he is trusted by both sides
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin 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. _
  report
2. 69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed on that note.
  report
64
alexandriaruthkposted 16 years ago
Wow, I will just read the posts here. I will glad to know where I came from, LOL
report
1. 69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  The fact that you don't know is scary.
  report
72
Mighty Momposted 16 years ago
Gawd. This is already worse than the Biden/Palin debate.
Don't MAKE me call Gwen Ifell in here, people!
report
59
GardnerOsagieposted 16 years ago
Resolve: Biblical worldview vs Secular worldview which best explains the evidence.
report
86
Sufidreamerposted 16 years ago
Trying to find Yoshi - he has not been about for a day or two.

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.
report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe you can take Yoshi's place until he comes back. I haven't seen him lately either.
  report
  86
  Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin 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?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Paraglider?
  report
  66
  prettydarkhorseposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Paraglider is sleeping now, I will wake him up LOL
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  
  report
2. 59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed
  report
3. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. We need to slow down as well LOL I am on GMT+1 and it is nearly dinner time.
  report
  80
  AEvansposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I also agree Mark go eat dinner. I will check back later and I am glad that both of you agreed on the topic.
  report
  86
  Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin 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
  
  Paraglider would be a good choice, if he is interested.
  
  Anyway, I am GMT +2 and dinner is ready - catch you all later
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin 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."
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin 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
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I m not prepare to argue in favor of a 190 year old out of date theory.
  
  "Evolutionary theory" is acceptable.
  report
78
glendoncabaposted 16 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?
report
64
alexandriaruthkposted 16 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,,,
report
59
GardnerOsagieposted 16 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.
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You accept the proposition I have made as an acceptable title?
  report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I'll also being using science and books not just the bible.
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Okay that's good. 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?
  report
60
Bovine Currencyposted 16 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.
report
60
Bovine Currencyposted 16 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.
report
0
sandra rinckposted 16 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?
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No. We need a proposition not a question.
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Then don't put a question ? mark at the end of it. And, make it a statement proposed.
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin 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?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  No. I am not interested in defending a 190 year old, out-of-date theory that has been supplanted many times.
  report
  69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Biblical theory better describes the origins of human life as opposed to Science.
  
  Hmmm.....Agreed?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong.
  Biblical theory better describes the origins of human life as opposed to Evolution Theory.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin 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?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  My bad. geese! lol
  
  Good then you both agree.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You have to stick to the same resources. So if in the sources you present you are able to refute it, I say fine but you cannot find another resource after your links have been submitted to refute.
  
  Can you agree to sticking to the same resources throughout the entire debate?
  
  If you want to use a video source, then that is one of your resources.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I think we should stick to two resources each and take it from there.
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I agree. Sufi, does this sound fair to you as well?
  
  And truth, do you agree?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Okay
  report
  86
  Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, that sounds like a good start.
  
  Now we just need the chairperson!
  report
  0
  lyricsingrayposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  ya
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Biblical theory better describes how human life came to be as opposed to Evolutionary theory.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed, You can be a judge!
  report
2. 59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  of life in general because evolution claims we are all connected with animals.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin 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
  report
60
Bovine Currencyposted 16 years ago
So have we worked it all out?
report
1. 0
  lyricsingrayposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I moooooo You Bovine
  report
  60
  Bovine Currencyposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I moooox you too Mz.Lyrics
  report
86
Sufidreamerposted 16 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
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  That is good.
  report
69
Cagsilposted 16 years ago
I'm not taking part. I'm not to be a judge in this case.

I respectfully decline.
report
60
Bovine Currencyposted 16 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.
report
1. 69
  Cagsilposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Later Bovine
  report
59
GardnerOsagieposted 16 years ago
I will be using online sources to every one can check it out for themselves
report
59
GardnerOsagieposted 16 years ago
Hello?
report
1. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
58
Mark Knowlesposted 16 years ago
OK. I will be using these two sources:

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/pr … osition=77

http://www.talkorigins.org/
report
60
Bovine Currencyposted 16 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.
report
59
GardnerOsagieposted 16 years ago
I will be using these two sources

http://www.trueorigin.org/

http://www.bibletruth.org.au/bible/index.php
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin 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?
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I guess something happened to truth.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin 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
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin 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?
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I don't understand your argument. Are you debating a position of someone else or for yourself?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Myself, with proof that backs up my claims.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin 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.
  
  report
60
chambersgirl21posted 16 years ago
Where is sooner? he would want to watch.
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I am sure that Gardner will want to confer, and that is acceptable also.
  report
60
marinealways24posted 16 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.
report
60
chambersgirl21posted 16 years ago
Christian Scientists are not really scientists only Atheist Scientists are real scientists. Its in the agenda.
report
1. 59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Yep!
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin 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?
  report
92
Dolores Monetposted 16 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)
report
59
GardnerOsagieposted 16 years ago
I'm done for today I'll check back tomorrow, but I doubt this will go anywhere
report
1. 60
  tantrumposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Very Messy !
  report
60
tantrumposted 16 years ago
report
1. 59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I concur!
  report
86
Sufidreamerposted 16 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
report
60
chambersgirl21posted 16 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.
report
1. 86
  Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds fair
  
  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
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds fair to me.
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
2. 59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  I can agree to this.
  report
60
chambersgirl21posted 16 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.
report
1. 59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Sooner was banned for 7 days 8 days ago.
  report
60
chambersgirl21posted 16 years ago
for what? We should ask moderators to let him back.
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  Why? He will not be talking part will he?
  report
60
chambersgirl21posted 16 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.
report
1. 58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOLOLOL
  
  Why would he scare me?
  
  He has the Intellectual capacity of a dog turd. Nothing scary about that.
  
  Would you feel better if he was here?
  report
  60
  chambersgirl21posted 16 years agoin 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?
  report
  59
  GardnerOsagieposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  zing zing, but I digress.
  report
  60
  tantrumposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  thanks for the laughs !
  now you can go on cleaning, chambersgirl
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
  60
  chambersgirl21posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  You used the phrase when he slammed "macro evolution"? I had to go look it up, not him. maybe you?
  report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 16 years agoin reply to this
  LOL
  
  Is this supposed to be stopping the debate?
  report
2. 0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin 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.
  report
3. 86
  Sufidreamerposted 16 years agoin 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
  report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 16 years agoin 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. )
  report
  60
  chambersgirl21posted 16 years agoin reply to this
  There you have it. I think Surfi and Sooner should be judges. Sooner was an atheist/scientist turned Christian.
  report

Closed to reply

jump to first post

12 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

THETRUTHHURTS2009(GARDNER) VS MARK KNOWLES(evolution guy)

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

THETRUTHHURTS2009(GARDNER) VS MARK KNOWLES(evolution guy)

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies