A note to Alan Fox: setting up a debate
Alan, just a note for future considerations-
1) When you set up a debate you have to make sure only the participants and perhaps a moderator can post in that thread.
2) A topic must be decided on. For example- Nested Hierarchy a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms
3) A format must be decided on- for example each person submits an opening essay that defends and substantiates their position. Each person then gets a chance to respond to the other person's opening. And then perhaps each would get a closing statement/essy.
See the following as an example:
Formal Debate Section
Although both parties left it at one opening essay each, each person did have the choice to post further.
That might be something I would be interested in. Zachriel takes the pro and I take the con. Each presents their case, regardless of what one may think the other knows or doesn't know, understand or doesn't understand, about set theory and/ or nested hierarchy. Everything can be explained in the opening essay. Each person would be given the same set date and time to present their opening.
The only other way is a face-to-face discussion. That would be my choice...
1) When you set up a debate you have to make sure only the participants and perhaps a moderator can post in that thread.
2) A topic must be decided on. For example- Nested Hierarchy a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms
3) A format must be decided on- for example each person submits an opening essay that defends and substantiates their position. Each person then gets a chance to respond to the other person's opening. And then perhaps each would get a closing statement/essy.
See the following as an example:
Formal Debate Section
Although both parties left it at one opening essay each, each person did have the choice to post further.
That might be something I would be interested in. Zachriel takes the pro and I take the con. Each presents their case, regardless of what one may think the other knows or doesn't know, understand or doesn't understand, about set theory and/ or nested hierarchy. Everything can be explained in the opening essay. Each person would be given the same set date and time to present their opening.
The only other way is a face-to-face discussion. That would be my choice...
posted by Joe G @ 12:56 PM
13 Comments:
At 1:27 PM,
Zachriel said…
joe g: "Nested Hierarchy a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms"
Well, I'll take the con side, then.
May 2006: "The nested hierarchy doesn't necessarily apply to the evolution of eukaryotes, hence common descent may not be the appropriate model, but perhaps endosymbiosis".
July 2006: "And, in fact, the Theory of Common Descent may not properly apply the origin and diversification of cellular life. However, the evidence strongly indicates that vertebrates share a common ancestry. Do you deny the scientific evidence for the common ancestry of mammals, for instance?"
September 2006: "Common Descent may not apply to bacteria, nor would we expect bacteria to evolve into Great Danes during the normal course of human observation."
November 2006: "Modern bacteria are highly evolved organisms with billions of years of prior history. The common ancestor of life on Earth today may or may not have resembled bacteria. The Theory of Common Descent may not properly apply to the origin of cellular life, where some sort of endosymbiosis may have been involved."
At 5:19 PM,
Joe G said…
This is too freakin' hilarious.
Now that everything is clear and concise Zachriel chooses the 'con' side of the argument:
2) A topic must be decided on. For example- Nested Hierarchy a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms
All along THAT is what I have been discussing while it appears that Zachriel's continued attempts at deception and distraction worked very well - on him!
Look the theory of evolution doesn't predict vertebrates and it doesn't predict metazoans. Therefore it cannot possibly predict any pattern that may arise from the evolution of either.
But now that Zachriel has weaseled his way out of a debate, by switching sides, all points are moot.
All of this could have been avoided had Zachriel the honesty and integrity to face the music to begin with.
At 5:05 AM,
Alan Fox said…
Happy New Year, Joe.
Life intervenes, so excuse the late and brief comment.
It seems to me the more formal rules you include, the less likely it is any free exchange of ideas will occur. I am especially reluctant to restrict access or exercise more than the minimum moderation possible.
Having said that, if you and Zachriel both want to submit guest posts, I will agree that only posts from Zachriel will be allowed on your thread. Zachriel can decide if he wants a similar restriction on his thread (assuming that this is a way to proceed).
At 5:07 AM,
Alan Fox said…
Happy New Year, Joe.
Life intervenes, so excuse late and brief comment.
It seems to me the more formal rules you include, the less likely it is any free exchange of ideas will occur. I am especially reluctant to restrict access or exercise more than the minimum moderation possible.
Having said that, if you and Zachriel both want to submit guest posts, I will agree that only posts from Zachriel will be allowed on your thread. Zachriel can decide if he wants a similar restriction on his thread (assuming that this is a way to proceed).
At 9:06 AM,
Joe G said…
Alan Fox:
It seems to me the more formal rules you include, the less likely it is any free exchange of ideas will occur.
It seems to me that without formal rules we won't have an exchange of ideas just mindless diatribe.
Alan Fox:
I am especially reluctant to restrict access or exercise more than the minimum moderation possible.
And I am reluctant to discuss anything on your blog without the restriction in this thread's OP.
It is too easy to get sidetracked, even in a one-on-one discussion. Never-mind with more people wasting the bandwidth.
Alan Fox:
Having said that, if you and Zachriel both want to submit guest posts, I will agree that only posts from Zachriel will be allowed on your thread. Zachriel can decide if he wants a similar restriction on his thread (assuming that this is a way to proceed).
It appears that the whole point is now moot as Zachriel fibnally faced reality and now wagrees with my premise- that the theory of evolution does NOT predict nested hierarchy.
At 9:13 AM,
Joe G said…
I will also note that Zachriel posted the following:
Zachriel said:
If life descended from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern.
But since then he has changed his tune. That is usually what happens when reality smacks people upside their head.
The nested hierarchy doesn't necessarily apply to the evolution of eukaryotes, hence common descent may not be the appropriate model, but perhaps endosymbiosis .
(However Zachriel failed to realize that humans are eukaryotes)
At 9:37 AM,
Joe G said…
Alan the following are your words:
If you are seriously interested in debating Zachriel in a neutral venue, where neither of you can be accused of using moderation unfairly, you may like to post here. I am posting the same invitation to Zachriel.
A debate in a neutral forum when TWO people are invited implies A) it will be a debate and B) it will be between only the two people invited.
Now all of a sudden it becomes an exchange of ideas.
Why is that people can't follow along and stay on track?
At 11:47 AM,
JohnADavison said…
Falan Ox is a masochist. If you don't believe me visit his blog where Martin and I are demonstrating his masochism for all to see and enjoy.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
At 12:57 PM,
Alan Fox said…
A debate in a neutral forum when TWO people are invited implies A) it will be a debate and B) it will be between only the two people invited.
Now all of a sudden it becomes an exchange of ideas.
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and a debate where no one learns anything is probably fruitless.
Yhe invitation stands. You could just try it. If you don't like it you don't have to stay.
At 1:39 PM,
Joe G said…
A debate in a neutral forum when TWO people are invited implies A) it will be a debate and B) it will be between only the two people invited.
Now all of a sudden it becomes an exchange of ideas.
Alan Fox:
The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive,
True. But if you had meant an exchange of ideas as opposed to a debate perhaps you could have communicated that a little clearer in your invitation.
Alan Fox:
...and a debate where no one learns anything is probably fruitless.
I have learned quite a bit already.
Alan Fox:
Yhe invitation stands. You could just try it. If you don't like it you don't have to stay.
The point is moot as Zachriel now agrees that the theory of evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy. As a response to the challenge in the OP Zachriel stated he will take the 'con' side. Seeing that is the side I have been trumpeting all along the deal is sealed.
Thanks and perhaps next time there will be something real to discuss.
At 1:42 PM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "Nested Hierarchy a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms"
Zachriel:
Well, I'll take the con side, then.
Zachriel, the switch-hitter:
If life descended from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern.
Again I note that vertebrates are eukaryotes.
At 9:31 AM,
Joe G said…
joe g: "2) A topic must be decided on. For example- Nested Hierarchy a prediction of the theory of evolution- pro & con- that would include ALL living organisms"
Zachriel:
Joe repeats his strawman.
Umm how can that be a strawman when that has been my position all along?
Zachriel:
I have already responded several times on his blog over a period of months, and more than once just on this thread (and posted to his own blog so I was sure he would see it).
Yes I saw the following:
Zachriel:
If life descended from a common ancestor, it would form a nested hierarchy pattern.
joe g: "Look the theory of evolution doesn't predict vertebrates and it doesn't predict metazoans."
Zachriel:
Vertebrates are an observable, as are the 'odd' correlations of characteristics that is implied in being a vertebrate.
LoL! You have serious issues. Being an observable does not make it a prediction. And our discussion was all about predictions.
At 3:38 PM,
Joe G said…
Alan you cupcake
Post a Comment
<< Home