An Evolutionist has Contradicted Himself.

So what? I don't mean that sarcastically. I'm quite serious. So what? First, we don't know who this fellow is - whether he's a good scientist or a bad scientist. Second, and more important, it doesn't matter. Many people who are very knowledgeable are not good at debate. People make mistakes in debate all the time. Did the poster of this video make any attempt to get a clarification from the scientist?

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• science
• evolution
• creation
• debate
• parsimony
• principle

[ndjarnag]

So, I watched the responded video.

It reminds me why I like science so much.

Science depends not on debating skills but on facts and evidence.

[TheFallibleFiend]

This vid looks dated. In the 80s and 90s, scientists were discouraged from debating creationists, mostly because the scientists had no idea what they were getting into. Many of them thought, naively, that you just get up and tell the truth and the audience is paying attention and wants to understand. The fact is that these debates are usually staged by creationists and they are packed TO THE GILLS with church-goers they have bussed in. Very hostile for the scientist.

[Ender1zero1]

Public debate doesn't prove anything except who knows their material who is more accomplished at speaking in public and who handles stress better. Written debates where points can be properly researched with cites included is IMO more informative.

[TheFallibleFiend]

That - and who is better practiced at delivering lines. Scientists do debate each other - in the pages peer reviewed literature, as you've pointed out - and the audience isn't just bus loads of the faithful, but their own peers who can understand and carefully evaluate the arguments presented.

[dudev]

The attainment of knowledge requires work and dedication. Simply picking up a bible and believing in it wholeheartedly is not work, it's pure intellectual laziness.

[andid]

I 100% agree with your point about stagnation, but I wonder if it really is just for the sake of winning that the religious ATTEMPT debate. They seem to be obsessed with truth just as much as the scientific, they just don't use the right logic to attain it.

[dudev]

The type of "debate" scientists engage in is nothing like what creationists think. The evidence is paramount in science, and it dictates the scope of a discussion. In a political or religious debates the arguments are twisted in order to win, not to gain insight.

Most religious people aren't interested in the art of discovery like scientists, they only want to be right. Religion is stagnation, not growth.

[andid]

If you're thinking in legal/professional terms instead of human ones, I suppose. Debate is about thought exchange, a battling of wits and ideas, hopefully resulting in either good answers or good questions. Debate encompasses all arenas of life..including "real" science.

[dudev]

"bus loads of the faithful"

A creationist speaker can use a few loaded words to influence a sympathetic audience, while a scientist has to explain evolution. In fact, the creationist is debating to win, while the scientist is speaking to clarify a complex topic. This is why such debates are a joke, a stage play, which only benefits propagandists (creationists). Real science is about evidence, not rhetoric.

[dudev]

Sorry, but the purpose of debate is to win an argument. This is why real science has nothing at all to do with debate.