Human Origins II: Adam or Australopithecus?
Steve B.
Welcome to the continued T.O debate on human origins between "Nowhere Man" and
"Lilith". This thread is a continuation of the previous one (Human Origins: Adam
or Australopithecus?)*. Participants are requested to post to the new thread for
convenience.
Posts to this thread should be made to the appropriate sub-thread. They are as
follows:
Closed Debate (Re: Human Origins II)
Please respect the rules of this debate by not posting under
this thread unless you are NM, Lilith, or a pre-selected judge
for the debate.
Open Commentary (Re: Human Origins II)
All may post to this thread, which is designated for comments
on the closed debate. Participants of this thread will most
likely copy the debaters' posts to this thread for public
commentary. So, look here first for debate text to comment on.
If you cannot find a copy of the debate text here to comment
on then please copy the desired text portion into this thread
before replying.
Thank you for your cooperation.
* This thread is continued from:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=b9bn4i%24pl9%241%40ins22
..netins.net
OR
http://tinyurl.com/dtcd
OR
<b9bn4i$pl9$1...@ins22.netins.net>
--
Steve
Steve B.
All may post to this thread, which is designated for comments
on the closed debate. Participants of this thread will most
likely copy the debaters' posts to this thread for public
commentary. So, look here first for debate text to comment on.
If you cannot find a copy of the debate text here to comment
on then please copy the desired text portion into this thread
before replying.
Thank you for your cooperation.
--
Steve
Steve B.
Please respect the rules of this debate by not posting under this thread unless
you are NM, Lilith, or a pre-selected judge for the debate. Public commentary
may be made to the "Open Commentary (Re: Human Origins II)" thread.
Thank you for your cooperation.
--
Steve
Jon Fleming
At least for future reference:
When you create multiple threads, use different titles; e.g. "Human
Origins II: Adam or Australopithecus? (closed)" and "Human Origins II:
Adam or Australopithecus? (open)".
The way I have Agent set up, it threaded your three "Human Origins II:
Adam or Australopithecus?" posts into one thread, so I can't see the
difference between them.
--
Replace nospam with group to email
gen2rev
Apparently, this depends upon the news reader you use and/or how you
have it set up. In Google Groups it shows up as two separate threads,
but it can also show up as one thread on some news readers, as you point
out.
Steve B.
"Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:k3s8evc3s0rbm393s...@4ax.com...
I screwed it up.
Steve
Jon Fleming
<gen...@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>Jon Fleming wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 05:51:57 +0000 (UTC), "Steve B."
>> <swb_rem...@ccp.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Open Commentary
>> >
>> > All may post to this thread, which is designated for comments
>> > on the closed debate. Participants of this thread will most
>> > likely copy the debaters' posts to this thread for public
>> > commentary. So, look here first for debate text to comment on.
>> > If you cannot find a copy of the debate text here to comment
>> > on then please copy the desired text portion into this thread
>> > before replying.
>> >
>> >Thank you for your cooperation.
>>
>> At least for future reference:
>>
>> When you create multiple threads, use different titles; e.g. "Human
>> Origins II: Adam or Australopithecus? (closed)" and "Human Origins II:
>> Adam or Australopithecus? (open)".
>>
>> The way I have Agent set up, it threaded your three "Human Origins II:
>> Adam or Australopithecus?" posts into one thread, so I can't see the
>> difference between them.
>
>Apparently, this depends upon the news reader you use and/or how you
>have it set up
I'm sure it does. I have Agent set up to "Enable threading by
subject", which I believe is the default, and which probably caused my
problem. I also have it set so that the References field in the
header overrides the title threading (so title changes don't start a
new thread), which I think is not the default.
> In Google Groups it shows up as two separate threads,
>but it can also show up as one thread on some news readers, as you point
>out.
Jon Fleming
<swb_rem...@ccp.com> wrote:
>
>"Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:k3s8evc3s0rbm393s...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 05:51:57 +0000 (UTC), "Steve B."
>> <swb_rem...@ccp.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Open Commentary
>> >
>> > All may post to this thread, which is designated for comments
>> > on the closed debate. Participants of this thread will most
>> > likely copy the debaters' posts to this thread for public
>> > commentary. So, look here first for debate text to comment on.
>> > If you cannot find a copy of the debate text here to comment
>> > on then please copy the desired text portion into this thread
>> > before replying.
>> >
>> >Thank you for your cooperation.
>>
>> At least for future reference:
>>
>> When you create multiple threads, use different titles; e.g. "Human
>> Origins II: Adam or Australopithecus? (closed)" and "Human Origins II:
>> Adam or Australopithecus? (open)".
>>
>> The way I have Agent set up, it threaded your three "Human Origins II:
>> Adam or Australopithecus?" posts into one thread, so I can't see the
>> difference between them.
>
>I screwed it up.
I wouldn't say that ... you could have done it better, but who can
keep track of the best or even the good ways to do things with the
plethora of possibilities for how the posts are being processed? Not
doing the best possible thing is quite understandable.
Steve B.
Steve B.
Pat Winstanley
m...@heartland.net says...
Could someone say whether the judges have come to a judgement yet
regarding NMs pleas for Lilith to amend her arguments etc as being
unfair?
If so, what was the judgement?
Andy Groves
Steve,
Can you clarify what was decided after the hiatus in Debate number I?
Are the two participants going to pick up where they left off? Is the
scope of the debate going to be narrowed? Or what?
Andy
AC
Indeed. I'm a little in the dark here. I have no idea what has been
decided; whether NM's appeal was granted or ignored.
--
Aaron Clausen
Steve B.
"Pat Winstanley" <ng_...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1952baf27...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
We're waiting on Tim Cox, the creationist judge. He doesn't seem to be
around. In the meantime, Mike and I are trying to reach a mutual ruling in
case he doesn't show up.
Steve
Pat Winstanley
m...@heartland.net says...
Thank you for the info.
Aron-Ra
I just went to the Cephas forums where they know him in real life, and
left a message for him to read the judgements and get with you guys.
Steve B.
"Aron-Ra" <ilc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:244130aa.03061...@posting.google.com...
Thanks. Let me know if you hear from him.
--
Steve
The road to the inner soul is much too muddy for my foreign car.
Dunk
<swb_rem...@ccp.com> wrote:
>>
>> When you create multiple threads, use different titles; e.g. "Human
>> Origins II: Adam or Australopithecus? (closed)" and "Human Origins II:
>> Adam or Australopithecus? (open)".
>>
>> The way I have Agent set up, it threaded your three "Human Origins II:
>> Adam or Australopithecus?" posts into one thread, so I can't see the
>> difference between them.
>
>I screwed it up.
>
>Steve
Why not start a new thread with "Closed" in the title? If any posts
have to be moved to it, that is easy.
Dunk
tim
I heard ya people where looking for me!
Firstly apologies to EVERYONE! I forgot to mention i was moving so i
was kinda offline for a while! Im VERY sorry now! I have emailed the
judges and if you have not come to a conclusion we now get to a final
conclusion and get this debate back in order!
Im very sorry again for the hassel i have caused :(
I try and check back regurarly, so just a warning in future i could
take up to a couple of days to reply but for the time being i try and
check every day for next few days so we can resolved this "judgement
call".
tim :)
PS. SORRY AGAIN
Thomas McDonald
"tim" <tco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:445111b1.03061...@posting.google.com...
(some call him...) Tim,
Yes, but are you sorry for what you've put us through? <grin>
For my part, I understand what you've been going through, and don't hold
it against you. Certainly, from the debate to that point, you had no reason
to think that you'd be called on to make a judgement. I suspect that the
request from NWM for a ruling was a stall for time on his part, although I
could very well be wrong.
I'm also impressed with the general respect for the agreed debate
structure on the part of everyone here. Lilith said that she was inclined
to give NWM the time he needed for his replies; NWM asked for a ruling, and
has waited for that ruling before continuing (my suspicion as to his motive
for asking notwithstanding); communication has obviously occurred among the
judges; and other posters have by and large respected the process.
IMHO, the best thing that could come out of this debate is a tested and
successful structure for conducting future debates. I am heartened by what
I've seen on this score so far.
Tom McDonald
Steve B.
"Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> wrote in message
news:2vkHa.957$2U1....@reggie.win.bright.net...
I think a debate of this structure would work great on focused topics. It
would be interesting to see such a debate with a more "robust" creationist
in the future. I wonder if one would submit to such a thing.
Thomas McDonald
Steve,
I sure hope one does. A consumation devoutly to be wished.
FWIW, there is a debate forming up in sci.archaeology that, while
different in organization and detail, is similar in purpose. They are
beginning to work out the preliminaries, and it looks like the fireworks
will start around June 25, God willing.
For anyone interested, the thread is "Re: State your case against KRS
former: beyond KRS...." on sci.archaeology.
Tom McDonald
John Harshman
Thomas McDonald wrote:
[snip]
>
> FWIW, there is a debate forming up in sci.archaeology that, while
> different in organization and detail, is similar in purpose. They are
> beginning to work out the preliminaries, and it looks like the fireworks
> will start around June 25, God willing.
>
> For anyone interested, the thread is "Re: State your case against KRS
> former: beyond KRS...." on sci.archaeology.
For those of us who have no strong inclination to visit the group, what
is the debate about, and what is KRS?
Thomas McDonald
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3EEDE4BD...@pacbell.net...
John,
Sorry. KRS = Kensington Rune Stone. It is a tombstone-sized piece of
greywacke, carved on one side with a story about a purported 1362
Scandinavian expeidition that ran into trouble near modern-day Kensington,
Minnesota, USA. It was discovered in 1898, and has been considered a hoax
for most of the intervening years.
However, it has had folks who support its being a genuine Norse
artifact, just as it says it is. There has been a lot of heat, and some
light, derived from the debate between the pro-hoax and the pro-authentic
sides, and there is some on-going research to test some aspects of it (e.g.:
its petrology and weathering).
It is a frequent topic of conversation at sci.archaeology. Recently, a
pro-athentic person challenged a pro-hoax person to debate the current state
of the evidence. It should be entertaining, at least; although I think it
might just turn ugly if passions get heated and tempers short.
The KRS debate can assume religious elements, mostly on the
pro-authentic side, but sometimes on the other side as well. It is an
acquired taste.
They appear to be looking at response times of one or two days, instead
of up to (and maybe over) a week as the t.o. debate has it.
I'm tickled pink at the idea of such structured debates occuring on
topics that interest me, and the sci.arch debate should give interesting
data which, added to the experience here, might be very useful.
Tom McDonald
tim
> > Are the two participants going to pick up where they left off? Is the
> > scope of the debate going to be narrowed? Or what?
>
> Indeed. I'm a little in the dark here. I have no idea what has been
> decided; whether NM's appeal was granted or ignored.
You should be seeing the judges decision anytime, we basically come to
a conclusion. Watch the debate for more info.
tim :)
Steve B.
this thread unless you are a pre-selected debater or judge for the debate.
Thank you.
Responce to NM's judgement requests on 6/5/03:
(Claims have been paraphrased for clarity)
Claim 1. Lilith misunderstands the rules.
Steve: Claim is rejected. There is not sufficient grounds to warrant a
ruling on this claim. It's not apparent that any specific rule is being
violated. This matter should be resolved in debate.
Mike: At worst, this is a mistake, and mistakes are not rule violations.
The claim is rejected.
Tim: No comment.
Claim Rejected (2/3)
Claim 2. Lilith is using unfair tactics. She is forcing her opponent to
accept her definition while rules out the possibility of his explanation
being acceptable.
Steve: Claim is rejected. It is both valid and required for debaters put
forth
definitions for terms intoduced (Rule 1e). Each debater should accept their
opponents definitions or attempt to resolve disputes involving definitions
within the debate.
Mike: The definition given by Lilith is in general use, and was not
created for this purpose. Further, at one time a creation model did in fact
meet that standard, so it is not impossible for creation to meet that
definition, and the definition is not innately unfair. The claim is
rejected.
Tim: Both NW and Lilith need to both understand each other theories. Lilith
needs to show NW respect if she has *appeared* to 'down-grade' his theory.
And so she must treat it has a theory and not some 'fairy tale', so just to
warn her not to appear to be 'funny' against it. Technically she hasnt
broken any rules, it appears NW seemed to be slightly offended because she
may of given the wrong impression. So just a word of caution to her, thats
all.
Claim Rejected (3/3)
Claim 3. "Creation theory" is a valid scientific theory according to
Lilith's definition with the singular exception of widespread acceptance.
Lilith should acknowledge this and retract her claim that "creation theory"
is not a valid scientific theory.
Steve: Claim is rejected. There is not sufficient grounds to warrant a
ruling on
this claim. It has not been effectively demonstrated that "creation theory"
is the claimed criteria. This matter should be resolved in debate.
Mike: Despite repeated requests, NowhereMan has not provided any method
of testing "creation theory". He therefore has not successfully
demonstrated that "creation theory" meets the remainder of the definition.
The claim is rejected.
Tim: No comment.
Claim Rejected (2/3)
Claim 4. "Creation theory" is not "Creationism". Lilith should stop
referring to it as Creationism.
Steve: Lilith should define the term "Creationism" or discontinue applying
it to
Nowhere Man's explanation.
Mike: "Creationism" should be defined if the term is going to be used.
Lilith is not, however, required to use the term "creation theory".
Tim: The terms which each person uses to describe each other theory is ok
as long as from now on in her post she defines the true meaning of
"creationism" and refers to it in the definition as releated to "creation
theory". Once this has been *strongly* defined she may carry on use the
word "creationism", but let her define it first. This is a compromised on
both parties part.
The term "Creationism" should be defined if used. (3/3)
Claim 5. Lilith states that her opponent must provide evidence in support
of his definition for it to be valid. This is false and Lilith should
retract the claim.
Steve: Claim is rejected. Nowhere Man used the term in question in debate
and it
is valid for Lilith to request him to back up his statements.
Mike: It is, of course, entirely acceptable for NowhereMan to define
"human" in any way he wishes, and I do understand that under his view,
humans must have been created with their full, current level of
intelligence. At the same time, however, the debate is about what the best
explanation for the available evidence is. Assessing how well the
definition given for human fits the available evidence is relevant to this
question. The claim is rejected.
Tim: The definition of human. You must understand a Creationist believe
humans where made fully functional at the start and did not *elvolve* to
the state of intellengence. And example of this is in the book of Genesis,
were the people of the earth spoke the same language and built the tower of
babel (very high), God then came down and divided the people up and
scattered them with different launguage. So its safe to say language was
there at the start, and so if there was language it must of been in all
forms, from written to spoken. The tower of babel was quite early on in the
bible. Also in the garden of eden, Adam *spoke* to eve, and to God, so its
safe to say there was a language since commincation already existed from
the start. Lilith should not downgrade NW idea of human because it dont
"fit in" with her view, so this should not be a argument. She should accept
his theory of language from the start. So NW theory is ok, obviously they
both disagree on this, she should not pick holes in that part of the theory
yet. And maybe argue that point another time or let it carry on as normal
but not reject it outright...
Claim Rejected (3/3)
Claim 6. Evolution theory does not predict actual adaptations in
populations, it only predicts that they will adapt. Lilith should remove
claims that evolution theory predicts actual adaptations.
Steve: Claim is rejected. There is not sufficient grounds to warrant a
ruling on
this claim. The point has not been effectively demonstrated and should be
continued in debate.
Mike: This point has not been sufficiently demonstrated. Debate should
continue. The claim is rejected.
Tim: No comment.
Claim Rejected (2/3)
Claim 7. Brain size growth in human evolution must have been sudden in
comparison to overall brain size growth in evolution. Lilith should retract
her claim that evolution of the human brain size would have had to be
sudden.
Steve: Claim is rejected. There is not sufficient grounds to warrant a
ruling on
this claim. The point has not been effectively demonstrated and should be
continued in debate.
Mike: Nowhere Man has not provided evidence that the increase was
sudden, nor has he defined "sudden". The claim is rejected.
Tim: NW again is using the point that God created us to brain size was
sudden. If NW has evidence he is welcome to back it up, but we must learn
that creationist believe we created "ok" back them. So lilith must take
this into account, however she will be looking for evidence, and is quite
welcome to challenge him on this but also she must take into account of his
theory as well. This is again a compromise.
Claim Rejected (3/3)
Claim 8. Lilith is requesting that her opponent provides evidence against a
claim of her explanation. It should not be required of an explanation to
provide evidence against competing explanations.
Steve: Claim is rejected. There is not sufficient grounds to warrant a
ruling on
this claim. It is not apparent what rule is being broken. The matter should
be continued in debate.
Mike: Since this debate does concern which position is the best
explanation for the data, it is hardly unreasonable for Lilith to ask
NowhereMan to explain how his position accounts for specific pieces of that
data. The claim is rejected.
Tim: AGREED. Lilith is more than welcome to request evidence against her
theory. That the idea!
Claim Rejected (3/3)
Claim 9. Evolution theory does not explain the existence of human
intelligence. Lilith should remove claims that evolution theory explain the
existence of human intelligence.
Steve: Claim is rejected. It is not clear where Lilith made this exact
claim. The
matter should be continued in debate.
Mike: NowhereMan has asserted that evolution does not explain
intelligence, but he has not in any way demonstrated that this is the case.
Debate should continue. The claim is rejected.
Tim: No comment.
Claim Rejected (2/3)
Claim 10. Lilith stated that her opponent claimed "language cannot have
arisen through known evolutionary mechanisms". Her opponent did not claim
this and the statement should be retracted.
Steve: Claim is rejected. It appears the statement in question is based on
a
misunderstanding of Nowhere Man's statements. The matter should be
continued in debate before a ruling can be made on this claim.
Mike: Lilith's understanding of NowhereMan's position may be mistaken
here. In fact, she has admitted as much, and has asked that NowhereMan
clarify his position for her, and point out where she is mistaken. That is
a reasonable request. It is difficult to say that a mistake actually rises
to the level of a "straw man" when such a request has been made. At worst,
Lilith is mistaken, and mistakes are not rule violations. Nowhere Man
should clarify his position in his response, but is free to resubmit the
claim if the issue continues in the next round. The claim is, for the
moment, rejected.
Tim: No comment.
Claim Rejected (2/3)
Claim 11. Lilith stated that her opponent's appeal to authority is invalid.
Her opponent's appeal to authority was valid and Lilith's claim should be
retracted.
Steve: Claim is rejected. Lilith did not claim that NM's appeal to
authority was
invalid. She only identified it as an appeal to authority (which of course,
it is). She did not claim that his *appeal* was fallacious, but that his
statements were not supported by evidence.
Mike: Just because a reference is provided for a particular claim does
not mean that the claim is necessarily correct. In this case, Lilith is
asking Nowhere Man to use actual data to support the claim, rather than
relying on authority. Such a request is reasonable. The claim is rejected.
Tim: No comment.
Claim Rejected (2/3)
Claim 12. Lilith makes racist comments. Her comments are improper and
should be retracted.
Steve: Claim is rejected. There are no apparent racist comments which Lilit
h
supports. She is claiming that NM premises are racist -- which is another
issue entirely. This particular claim is not valid.
Mike: I personally fail to see what is racist about the claim that all
humans are descended from a group of individuals which originated in
Africa. The claim is rejected.
Tim: No comment.
Claim Rejected (2/3)
Claim 13. Lilith did not present evidence for her claim that human
ancestors migrated out of Africa. Evidence should be presented or the claim
should be retracted.
Steve: Claim is rejected. The evidence presented was in the form of a
reference.
The material can be researched or Nowhere Man can request further
clarification on the subject. The matter should be continued in debate.
Mike: Although only the abstract is available online, the reference is
for a full length article in a major journal. It is not Lilith's fault that
Nowhere Man is unable to locate the article. Lilith cited a summary article
which is a toned down explanation of a relatively jargon-heavy research
article published in the same issue. The journal selected, Nature, is one
of the two scientific journals most likely to be carried by a public
library. In selecting both the type of article and the journal, Lilith
appears to have gone out of her way to provide a reference Nowhere Man had
a reasonable chance of finding. The claim is rejected. In the future,
should Nowhere Man have trouble locating this or any other reference, he is
encouraged to ask the group for help.
Tim: No comment.
Claim Rejected (2/3)
Claim 14. Lilith did not present evidence for her claim that humans with
less intelligence should not farm and build cities. Evidence should be
presented or the claim should be retracted.
Steve: Claim is rejected. It is not clear where Lilith made this exact
claim. The
matter should be continued in debate.
Mike: I can't find anywhere where Lilith claimed that humans with less
than 100% of modern intelligence levels should not be able to farm, etc.
The claim is rejected.
Tim: No comment.
Claim Rejected (2/3)
Additional Comments
Steve: Many of the claims were trivial in nature. It is advised the judge's
services only be requested for important debate issues and apparent rule
violations. It's not required that Lilith reposts her material. The
clarification on claim #4 should be presented in a follow-up post in the
"Closed Debate (Re: Human Origins II)" thread. After the clarification is
posted, NM should reply as usual.
Mike: With regard to claims 3 and 4, both debaters should remember that the
point being debated is what provides the best _explanation_, not directly
over which is a scientific theory.
--
Steve
Lilith
> Claim 4. "Creation theory" is not "Creationism". Lilith should stop
>referring to it as Creationism.
>Lilith should define the term "Creationism" or discontinue applying
it to Nowhere Man's explanation.
My definition of Creationism is that found in the dictionary. You can
find this through dictionary.com. I supply the definition here. My
apologies. I had assumed this word was not a "new term" that needed to
have a definition supplied for it, as it's found in many dictionaries.
However, there there are many fine shades of meaning of "creationism",
for instance:
Creationism:
n. Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation
of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published
by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
This is rather centered around the Bible, however, so I will extend
"Creationism" even further to mean:
Creationism:
n. A belief in the supernaturally-directed creation of the universe
including all living things, often based on belief in the literal
interpretation of religious texts.