Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Another wanna-debate me

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 3
 [ 51 posts ] 
Another wanna-debate me
Author Message
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 555Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Another wanna-debate me

The following was posted to my YouTube channel, amidst other conversations, all of which will likely disappear or be inaccessible in a matter of days. I'm documenting this here, just so that there is an accessible intelligible record of this discussion somewhere.

Eric Wolfbitn Jewell wrote:Aron.. hello.. lets debate the merits of the theory of evolution.. no other theory, just the merits of evolution and the evidence it is built on... live and on air.. what do you think?
When you say, "not any other theory", what other theories are you thinking of? If we're talking about biodiversity, there is only one.

Actually i pretty much agree with you, but iv had several people say they would take up debate but they wanted to compare evolution with other ideas as their defense.. i have a opening for a talk show debate and the host wanted specifically evolution on its own merits.. not in comparison to anything.
If you want to have me on some show explaining the merits of evolution as a theory, then fine. But there is no other theory of biodiversity. Creationism meets exactly none of the criteria required of a scientific theory.

I can prove otherwise in a 2nd debate.. We can take Genesis 1 and make as many predictions as we can by reading origin of species, and all these predictions can be tested
No you cannot prove otherwise, and the fact that you even think that is laughable. We won't need two debates to do that either. Now what are the details of this show you're talking about?

Well yes i can and yes we will, you shouldnt assume so much.. its not your show or mine and its the show the host is wanting to host lol.. Late night in the midlands is the show, over radio and internet, with host michael vara And i would suggest sharpening up on evolution my friend because i can tell you now youll not be able to defend it against me on its own merits :)
No assumption necessary. This is knowledge born of extensive study. I don't need to sharpen up on evolution either, but you should take your own advice, because your position is hopeless. And stop trying to bluff me. Even if I thought you knew something, even if I thought you could be right, you still couldn't intimidate me. As it is, I know you're wrong, and you'll know that too after the show. So give me the where and when and stop trying to puff up. You've nothing to bluff with.

I wasnt trying to intimidate you.. just giving you fair warning. Nor am i bluffing.. and i already told you where.. late night in the midlands with michael vara.. its an internet radio talk show, not religious at all. The first debate is only dealing with the merits of evolution,by itself, how it stands in light of whatever evidence you can muster for it, and after i tear down the illusion with nothing but science. I can get us a date when i have a solid agreement. It will begin at 9:30 pm EST on whatever date i can get for us..
You have no idea what you're talking about or what you're getting yourself into. Give me the format and the question being debated. Is it whether there is an alternative theory to evolution?

No it isnt whether there is an alternative.. The question being debated is, "Evolution of life on earth - Does the theory have any merit after 150 years? What is the evidence supporting it? Is there any PROOF of evolution? How credible is the theory?" The format in a nutshell will be as follows... 1st presenter 10 minutes presenting their case. At the end he gets to ask 2 questions of presenter 2 2nd presenter gets 10 minutes presenting and gets to ask the first presenter 2 questions 1st presenter answers both questions and uses what time is left of his 10 minutes presenting whatever he likes as more evidence for or against evolution 2nd presenter answers both questions and presents til his 10 minutes are up. Then each get a 5 minute wrap up leading to commercial break ending the first half of the show.. The 2nd half we each take THREE 5 minute turns asking each other 1 question, answering questions and making out points, Then we end with a 5 minute wrap up each where neither are held to answer anything from the other.. just a closing argument. that gives us 45 minutes each total time, and allows for 4 questions each regarding evolution and any evidence for or against it.
You want me to debate four different questions? Each one could be summarized by whether the global scientific consensus could be refuted by the inadequate confusion of a religious fundamentalist. Have you ever had a debate before? I mean a real one? Because no one would agree to debate a handful of vague notions rather than one specific question, especially not when there is no counter-position. You challenged me to debate the merits of evolution as a theory. That necessitates an alternative to be considered. You assert that creationism qualifies as a theory, and I know better. Further you said you could prove it too. No you can't, but that is the counter position. You said you'd do that in a second debate, but there isn't going to be a second debate. This will be that debate. If I am going to explain the merits of evolution as a theory, I will need to compare the only theory of biodivsity there is or ever was to another notion which does not qualify as a theory. That's our debate. It has to be, because the way you structured this, we each get three different rounds of five minutes to ask just one question of our opponent. I will be able to properly address whatever question you ask. But if I'm explaining the merits of evolution as a theory, and I'm not allowed to talk about creationism as the only relevant example of a failed notion that doesn't meet any of those requirements, then what three questions could I ask of you? You're neither defending an alternate theory, nor allowing me to mention the notion you think should qualify, so there wouldn't be any questions I could ask you. Your format therefore fails before it begins -for more reasons than you know. You told me you were looking for someone to represent evolution on someone Else's show. That's fine and I don't mind doing that. But then I find out this is really your show; that this other person is only hosting a show for you at your request. A while back, I posted a rule against accepting debate challenges from random folks who nominate themselves, because there's no point in beating you if you don't represent anyone else. My rule is that I would accept the challenge only if some collective group nominates you to represent them. Otherwise there's nothing in it for me. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/reasonadvo ... debatable/ Now if you want to pay me for my time, that's different. In which case we'll drop the three questions each, because I know the answers and you don't want to. Otherwise if you expect me to break my rule for you, then we're going to argue the position you suggested in the beginning, the one you invited me with; whether evolution is the only theory of biodiversity, or whether there is another. That way I can still do exactly what you wanted me to do, explaining the merits and evidence of evolution, and I would actually have three questions to ask you when it is my turn to do so. There needs to be a specific point to prove in this type debate, and you opened this conversation with it. So I say that's what it should be.

Wow dude theres so much wrong with everything you just said im going to take it one at a time.. I asked 4 questions not because they are different questions because they arent.. but to clarify the direction of the debate Also evidently you cant defend evolution without comparing it to another theory? Thats very telling.. are you saying you dont have enough evidence for evolution to make it stand on its tiny little vestigial legs by itself? And PAY YOU for your time? Son you should be glad someones asking you lol But i sense theres more to it than this.. You know evolution doesnt hold up under scrutiny of true scientific method when you actually test its so called evidence.. I see no need for your aggressive and condescending tone, when you were approached in a decent way.. itll stop So are we going to do this and negotiate like adults who know how to be civil, or are you simply going to back away from the table .. back away from a live on air moderated debate?

and wait.. what the hell do you mean this is MY show? Youre saying im lying dude and youre just overboard and out of line with that.. where do you atheists get your bullshit? Where in your own ass did you even pull that from?
If I'm just explaining the merits of evolution as a theory, as you initially asked me to do, that's fine. But if I'm 'defending' evolution then there must be something to defend against. Do you not see that? I don't actually need to defend evolution. My point in wanting to keep the challenge on the point of a scientific theory is to prove there is no threat against it.

I don't need to prove you have nothing in order to prove that I have something. But the debate you propose uses four separate questions which should be addressed differently. I know you don't understand that. Darwin said "ignorance more often begets confidence than does knowledge". That's why you're challenging me to a debate. You're exhibiting the Dunning-Krueger effect. By not promoting or defending any alternate position, then you're not offering a debate. You're asking me to explain the merits of evolution as a theory while you learn from that. There is no other option as you don't know what you think you know, and you have no alternative to offer. I know you don't understand this either, but I know what I'm talking about, and you've already shown that you don't. You're asking to get an education, not a debate.

The fact remains that your questions are not the same. They do NOT 'clarify' the point of the debate. Quite the opposite; they obfuscate it. If you want to clarify it, ask ONE question, not four, and make it something that could actually be answered. If you're going to ask four questions, they should all have the same answer. For example, "Does the theory have any merit after 150 years?" can be answered with a simple, yes. "What is the evidence supporting it?" could be answered with a series of long lists in different categories. "Is there any PROOF of evolution?" requires a combination of both of the previous answers, in addition to an explanation of which definition of "proof" we're using. But "How credible is the theory?" cannot be answered because there is no metric other than a variable adjective, very, completely, conclusively, etc.

So I have to guess that you have never had an actual debate and do not know how this works, just like you don't know what evolution is, or what a theory is. I do not want to be seen as beating up on a cripple. So I am not going to debate you unless you concede that the topic remain what you originally said it should be.

Youll be defending evolution against science.. scientific method.. examination of the evidence.. youll be defending it from darwin himself in origin of species.. whatever evidence you think you can muster for it, because science alone annihilates evolution.. i dont make a religious argument against it.. Now try to look at the subject from that point of view.. the merits of evolution as it stands on its own evidence, there are no other side issues or secondary theories to bring into it
I say again, you have already demonstrated that you have no idea what you're talking about. So I would do this, against my own rules, for the purpose of broadcasting an educational point. Regarding biodiversity, there are no other theories at all. If we are going to discuss the merits of evolution as a theory, I certainly should also be allowed to explain how the only would-be contender fails all those same criteria. If I am defending evolution, then I am defending science against the pseudoscience which you represent. I would not be defending the modern synthesis of evolution as we understand it today against Darwin. That is not even possible, and I'll be happy to explain why. But your current format also still would not allow me any questions for you since you refuse to take an alternate position. Your present inability to understand what I will explain to you cannot be your only debate tactic. That, as I said, would not be a debate at all. So the question to be settled should be whether evolution is the foundation of modern biology, as the world-wide scientific community insists that it is) or whether there is any other theory to compete with evolution.

i Told you already THIS IS NOT YOUR SHOW... NOR IS IT MINE.. You dont determine how to break this show down, the host does. He wants TWO shows one on evolution, one on creation... if you cant do that just say you cant defend evolution without trying to bring creation into it and i will move on.. I told you what my argument is so deal with it... are you in yes or no?
You did tell what your argument is, that you can prove that creationism qualifies as an alternate theory to evolution. I'm certainly willing to debate that, because I don't just believe that you're wrong, I know it, and that will all too easy to prove. So it's not my problem that you can't focus on any one debate question, (because you don't know what you're talking about) nor that you refuse to pursue the topic you invited me with. If your host wants one show on evolution and one on creation, then he's not asking for a debate. I would also suggest that if it is his show, you should let him invite me instead of you, because you're not representing him well. If it's his show and not yours, then he gets to determine how it will go down, not you.

Thats cool dude.. i'll just let everyone know youre afraid to debate evolution and the science behind it and how it holds water on its own.. no problem..

i guess when you said you werent intimidated, you were just letting the cat out of the closet eh? You were lol ..I'll let you know when i'm done with my newest video on AronRa running from a creationist.. already have the screeenshots :)


"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Mon Nov 16, 2015 6:40 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Just had a brief look at this guy's YouTube channel.

I predict that if he shows up here he will lead with these two PRATTs:

- feature X is not useless and therefore not vestigial

- transitional fossils must be direct ancestors
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Mon Nov 16, 2015 7:36 pm
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Oh oh I wanna make a prediction about his claims!

-Telomeres don't fuse
-If you don't show me a monkopotamus youre wrong
Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:10 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3430Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Who is Eric Wolfbitn Jewell and why should anyone entertain the idea of having a live formal debate with him? In addition, I will say it does say a lot about Jewell's character to make a "victory lap" video because AronRa does not care to waste time with just another internet nobody.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:20 pm
YIM WWW
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 531Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Just went through some of his chats.

Apparently the NSA sends people to downvote his videos and Youtube is cutting his views in half (20 views ont he video above, so I guess Youtube decided to cut it down from 40).

Classic Munchausen Syndrome mixed with Dunning-Kruger and a tad bit of megalomania.
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:52 pm
AronRaContributorUser avatarPosts: 555Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:47 pm

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

The funny thing is that I never refused to debate him. I just insisted that he do it properly. There needs to be only one question being considered. It must be an answerable question, and there must be an opposing position. He couldn't / wouldn't figure any of that out. He doesn't understand why it wouldn't have been possible to proceed with the format he suggested, because it doesn't work, and he wouldn't fix it. So he pretended that I refused him instead. So that he could call me dishonest.
"Faith means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." - Mark Twain
Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:01 am
nemesissUser avatarPosts: 1259Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 7:29 pm

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Another one of them?
Aron must be like honey, cause he attracts these idiots like no other...

I can already see how such a debate will go:

I don't understand X about evolution, you can't explain it that I can/want to understand it.
Therefor, creationism wins by default.

Indeed a waste of time. It would have been interesting if he'd do a formal one and you can drill him on his misconception and slowly explain why he is wrong. but I doubt he would want that, cause that'll force him to admit he is wrong and everything in just that video alone says more then enough about him.

He doesn't need a debate, but an education.
Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:12 am
MugnutsBloggerUser avatarPosts: 383Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:13 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

sufficed to say, we won't be missing much. It looks like abelcainsbrother with grammar and punctuation. Spelling needs work though.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25153

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25004

https://ericjewell.wordpress.com/author/wolfbitn/
"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne
Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:37 am
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5007Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Anyone is free to invite him over here. I'd like to take him to task about his assertions in the linked video, but don't care enough to do it myself.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:51 am
MugnutsBloggerUser avatarPosts: 383Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2014 2:13 am Gender: Male

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

The opponent of wolfbitn summarized the 'debate' they had. Same issue. Propose debate and topic, then affix rocket skates to the goalposts.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25004&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

I'll have to admit Aron, that the whole debate challenge stuff is entertaining, but everything else you do is so much more productive. Next time tell them they not only have to pass your debate criteria, but they need to come here to get vetted. Then hand them to itsdemtitans (think I spelled it right...ooh, I can edit this later.....why am I still typing..)
"In the end theologians are jealous of science, for they are aware that it has greater authority than do their own ways of finding “truth”: dogma, authority, and revelation. Science does find truth, faith does not. " - Jerry Coyne
Tue Nov 17, 2015 10:56 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3430Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Mugnuts wrote:sufficed to say, we won't be missing much. It looks like abelcainsbrother with grammar and punctuation. Spelling needs work though.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25153

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25004

https://ericjewell.wordpress.com/author/wolfbitn/


Two observations:

1) He was banned from Debating Christianity forum. I don't know what their banning protocall is, but it is never a good sign to get banned from a forum when you are challenging others to debates. Especially since it looks like he had plenty of warnings before getting banned.

2) He seems to believe that science is decided by live debate. That alone exposes how little he knows about how science works. If he has an idea, he needs to write it up and submit it for peer-review. The peer-review process is the debate that happens in the scientific community to establish which hypotheses should be disposed of and which should be investigated further.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Tue Nov 17, 2015 5:59 pm
YIM WWW
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5007Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Having read the linked debate, I've changed my mind about inviting him here. It would be utterly futile to engage him in any kind of reasoned discussion, let alone a formal debate. Of course, this is simply my opinion.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:46 am
LaurensSocial EditorUser avatarPosts: 2986Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:24 pmLocation: Norwich UK Gender: Male

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Prolescum wrote:Having read the linked debate, I've changed my mind about inviting him here. It would be utterly futile to engage him in any kind of reasoned discussion, let alone a formal debate. Of course, this is simply my opinion.

Some people enjoy banging their head against the wall.

Arguing with zealots is the secular equivalent of self flaggelation.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
Like the League of Reason on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Shameless Self-Promotion
Listen to my music on Soundcloud
Like my music page on Facebook
Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:56 pm
ProlescumWebhamsterUser avatarPosts: 5007Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:41 pmLocation: Peptone-upon-Sores

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Ha! That's true.
if constructive debate is allowed to progress, better ideas will ultimately supplant worse ideas.

Comment is free, but facts are sacred
Wed Nov 18, 2015 4:15 pm
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 531Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

I went briefly through his comment history on disqus and you dodge a bullet Aron. Apparently, this guy's MO is to declare victory even when he's hopelessly wrong.
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Sat Nov 21, 2015 2:46 am
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 805Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Dustnite wrote:I went briefly through his comment history on disqus and you dodge a bullet Aron. Apparently, this guy's MO is to declare victory even when he's hopelessly wrong.

I think you described the MO of most internet creationists there.
Sat Nov 21, 2015 8:52 am
WolfbitnUser avatarPosts: 10Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 6:54 pm

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Aron, hi.. i see you like to talk behind people's back after you ran from a live on air debate :)
..I challenge you right here right now, live and on air, me against you, the question we will debate is "is evolution just your imagination?" Of course i know to expect nothing but posturing from you as you slither away from a public embarrassment :)
For the other keyboard cowboy wanna be's i see posting in this thread, put yourself a team together and i will take absolutely every one of you on this topic of debate.. mono vs all of you isnt fair, but you cant muster much more than whats here im afraid. His little buddies on his youtube channel abandoned him even
If you're just a talker, DONT WASTE MY TIME... I only have time for DO'ers.
Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:04 pm
Gnug215ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 2630Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:31 pm

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Wolfbitn wrote:Aron, hi.. i see you like to talk behind people's back after you ran from a live on air debate :)
..I challenge you right here right now, live and on air, me against you, the question we will debate is "is evolution just your imagination?" Of course i know to expect nothing but posturing from you as you slither away from a public embarrassment :)
For the other keyboard cowboy wanna be's i see posting in this thread, put yourself a team together and i will take absolutely every one of you on this topic of debate.. mono vs all of you isnt fair, but you cant muster much more than whats here im afraid. His little buddies on his youtube channel abandoned him even



Hi Wolfbitn,

While not an overt rule, I think we all agree that you have to be at least 16 years old to enter a debate, so my apologies, but that disqualifies you. Try again in a couple of years.
- Gnug215

YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Gnug215


The horse is a ferocious predator.
Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:25 pm
itsdemtitansBloggerUser avatarPosts: 706Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:36 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

This is gonna be another Bernhard, I can tell. Better get my popcorn ready for this one.
Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:28 pm
WolfbitnUser avatarPosts: 10Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 6:54 pm

Post Re: Another wanna-debate me

Gnug215 wrote:
Wolfbitn wrote:Aron, hi.. i see you like to talk behind people's back after you ran from a live on air debate :)
..I challenge you right here right now, live and on air, me against you, the question we will debate is "is evolution just your imagination?" Of course i know to expect nothing but posturing from you as you slither away from a public embarrassment :)
For the other keyboard cowboy wanna be's i see posting in this thread, put yourself a team together and i will take absolutely every one of you on this topic of debate.. mono vs all of you isnt fair, but you cant muster much more than whats here im afraid. His little buddies on his youtube channel abandoned him even



Hi Wolfbitn,

While not an overt rule, I think we all agree that you have to be at least 16 years old to enter a debate, so my apologies, but that disqualifies you. Try again in a couple of years.


Is that the best youve got? You represent atheism for what it is though.. empty arguments and spam and ad hom when you have nothing else, and if that doesnt work, throw in acting like a 2 year old. I take it you dont have what it takes to enter a live on air debate.. The number of shows Iv done as guest speak for themselves
If you're just a talker, DONT WASTE MY TIME... I only have time for DO'ers.
Sat Dec 05, 2015 7:45 pm
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 3
 [ 51 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
cron