DC Evolution Smackdown
The phenomenon of evolution denialism here at DC seems to serve as an analogy of evolution itself. From time to time, an evolution denialist will arrive on the scene here at DC. Various members here will proceed to apply some very stringent selective pressure against such views. They fall out of favor and disappear from the conversation, and the selective pressure abates, allowing them to eventually spring up again and start the cycle again. Recent comments from two theists here (jamie steele and john murphy) indicate that its time for the periodical Cloroxing of the idea pool.
Evolution is both a collection of facts and one of the most thoroughly supported scientific theories known to man. The world is MUCH more than 6000 years old. There was no global flood 4000 years ago. The universe was not formed as described in the Genesis story (either one of them). Wanna fight about it?
Here are the ground rules:
1.) As we are talking about science, the only valid "way of knowing" is empiricism. Sorry; deal with it.
2.) If you have an argument to make, don't just link to the Answers in Genesis site (or the talkorigins site) you lifted it from; post it here in enough detail to defend.
3.) If you wish to cite facts that are beyond what the average college undergraduate would know, you should cite the peer reviewed publications. As evolution, Big Bang, and archaeological history dating back considerably more than 6000 years IS undergraduate-level knowledge, the initiative of attack is granted to the denialists.
4.) If you wish to claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you must be able to correctly state the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and if you get it wrong I get to hand out a cyber-noogie.
My hope is to relegate all of the typical denialist claims here for debunking so other debates can continue underailed by this stuff. So jamie, john, and other closet creationists lurking here, put up or shut up.
Evolution is both a collection of facts and one of the most thoroughly supported scientific theories known to man. The world is MUCH more than 6000 years old. There was no global flood 4000 years ago. The universe was not formed as described in the Genesis story (either one of them). Wanna fight about it?
Here are the ground rules:
1.) As we are talking about science, the only valid "way of knowing" is empiricism. Sorry; deal with it.
2.) If you have an argument to make, don't just link to the Answers in Genesis site (or the talkorigins site) you lifted it from; post it here in enough detail to defend.
3.) If you wish to cite facts that are beyond what the average college undergraduate would know, you should cite the peer reviewed publications. As evolution, Big Bang, and archaeological history dating back considerably more than 6000 years IS undergraduate-level knowledge, the initiative of attack is granted to the denialists.
4.) If you wish to claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you must be able to correctly state the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and if you get it wrong I get to hand out a cyber-noogie.
My hope is to relegate all of the typical denialist claims here for debunking so other debates can continue underailed by this stuff. So jamie, john, and other closet creationists lurking here, put up or shut up.