tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post1810189386831931935..comments2023-10-26T07:19:41.446-05:00Comments on Science Avenger: Debating Creationists: Vox Day vs PZ MyersScienceAvengerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-54634190828024072132007-07-09T11:55:00.000-05:002007-07-09T11:55:00.000-05:00Physicist, I think the response of PZ and others w...Physicist, I think the response of PZ and others was sufficient. If you have a case to make, make it, that's what blogs are for. Do it on your own site, or in the comments at PZ's. I am confident you will have no shortage of people willing to engage you.<BR/><BR/>Matt, debates are for subjects like politics, where the facts are often difficult to discern, and even the questions themselves are up for challenge. To pretend that this describes science, and that there is actually something to debate, would do far more damage in the eyes of the public in my opinion. Science is the closest thing to a pure meritocracy we have. That is how it should be promotede and why it deserves respect.<BR/><BR/>See, this whole call for debates is a sham at its core. There are not hoards of people sincerely interested in the issue of creationism/evolution who have studied the evidence to the best of their ability and yet are still confused and need a debate to help them settle the issue. Those people who have studied the evidence overwhelmingly accept evolution. Those who don't aren't interested in the evidence, they are interested in rhetoric that allows them to cling to their tenuous beliefs. Having a debate for them isn't going to persade them, it will merely reinforces their flawed views. <BR/><BR/>Creationist arguments are NOT easily refuted, that's why they have been so succesful in their PR campaign. They are wrong, no doubt, but they tend to involve very arcane issues like bacterial flagellums and blood clotting cascades which require a lot of detailed knowledge to refute. Even refuting Kirk Cameron's idiotic crocoduck argument involves a lot of technical knowledge. Better to note that he, like all creationists, does no science, and merely plays word games and makes shit up.<BR/><BR/>And finally, no one has yet given a single reason why a public oral debate is superior to a written one on the web. A written debate would be more complete, and would reach a wider audience. The only reason creos push the oral version is because their debating tricks won't work in writing.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-60514078778079695542007-07-09T11:02:00.000-05:002007-07-09T11:02:00.000-05:00I happen to believe that Darwin was right, but I d...I happen to believe that Darwin was right, but I disagree pretty strongly with most of the points you raise here. Vox has addressed these points quite well, I think- and in fact, there are quite a few scientists of my acquaintance who are well-trained in rhetoric, so I know that they can be found. Likewise, refusing to debate them as equals will not lose you any credibility in the scientific community, but outside of that, you'll lose a lot. What the general populace believes is important, I think, to the future of science and to society's support for it, and most people don't read peer-reviewed magazines. Public debate would be a good way to address the <I>easily defeated</I> arguments of creationists, to push the burden of proof to them, and to show the public how ludicrous they are. I'm not sure if you've seen the debate where Kirk Cameron tried to prove the existence of God without reference to scripture, but if so, this is exactly the kind of thing that I mean (and if not, you can find it on youtube, I'm sure).Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00467770658450462986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-59929329222992583952007-07-09T10:46:00.000-05:002007-07-09T10:46:00.000-05:00I offered to debate PZ in the written word and he ...I offered to debate PZ in the written word and he declined, looks like your wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-64786475103103149642007-07-08T18:41:00.000-05:002007-07-08T18:41:00.000-05:00You've been tagged. Don't blame me. I'm just foll...You've been <A HREF="http://thedesigninterference.blogspot.com/2007/07/seems-like-tagging-that-has-been-doing.html" REL="nofollow"> tagged</A>. Don't blame me. I'm just following orders.Hawkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15142674200236893000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-73306548958523285832007-07-08T18:40:00.000-05:002007-07-08T18:40:00.000-05:00You've been tagged. Don't blame me. I'm just foll...You've been <A HREF="http://thedesigninterference.blogspot.com/2007/07/seems-like-tagging-that-has-been-doing.html" REL="nofollow"> tagged</A>. Don't blame me. I'm just following orders.Hawkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15142674200236893000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-22339690891117119732007-07-08T10:08:00.000-05:002007-07-08T10:08:00.000-05:00Thank Grendelkhan. Perspective indeed.Thank Grendelkhan. Perspective indeed.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-27101969152298867392007-07-08T09:24:00.000-05:002007-07-08T09:24:00.000-05:00The blog's name is "Vox Popoli"; the blogger's nam...The blog's name is "Vox Popoli"; the blogger's name is "Vox Day".<BR/><BR/>Would you be so kind as to, in future, not refer to the blogger as "Vox Day", but rather has (with the hyperlink) "<A HREF="http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html" REL="nofollow">Future Toddler Chopper</A> Vox Day"? I think it would provide some much-needed perspective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com