The text of an agreement for format and subject of a debate between "DoctorAnswers" and myself.

This is an exact copy of that text taken from our Skype conversation.

[9/6/2009 9:30:43 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Hey Nick.
[9/6/2009 9:31:15 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: I just got home from a few days in the mountains (Hiking/Camping) and saw your message on my profile.
[9/6/2009 9:32:07 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: I don't check my profile page that often so if you would like to get hold of me sooner an e-mail or skype call would be quicker.
[9/6/2009 9:32:48 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: I would LOVE a debate so contact me ASAP about your suggestions for a format and we will bang it out for a time
[9/6/2009 9:32:49 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Thanx,
[9/6/2009 9:32:52 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Yours
[9/6/2009 9:32:54 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: SP
[9/6/2009 9:33:28 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: BTW it is Sunday 9:30 PM my time and 6:30 yours
[9/6/2009 9:35:21 PM] DoctorAnswers: Have you thought of any ideas?
[9/6/2009 9:37:11 PM] DoctorAnswers: I alow evolutionists to give suggestions and then I alow part of what they want to discuss. So that they can't complaine and say that I am formating everything so that they will fail
[9/6/2009 9:42:41 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Hey there. What I ment by format is how the debate will be conducted and what the specific subject will be.
[9/6/2009 9:42:52 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Just a sec, let me get my headset
[9/6/2009 9:44:03 PM] *** Call to DoctorAnswers, duration 11:01. ***
[9/8/2009 5:17:44 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Hey Nick, Have you thought about the format and subjects for the debate?
[9/8/2009 5:25:12 PM] DoctorAnswers: yes I have
[9/8/2009 5:26:09 PM] DoctorAnswers: I was thinking that I might bring up the idea of humans having 46 chromosomes and chimps having 48.
[9/8/2009 5:27:34 PM] Nick: It seems odd that can happen when we know of the disorders children have with 45
[9/8/2009 5:29:08 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Ok, so a subject to start out with would be the chromosome #'s of humans compared with other primates.
[9/8/2009 5:29:13 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: What about the format?
[9/8/2009 5:29:52 PM] Nick: probably have 3 different videos of a subject for both of us
[9/8/2009 5:30:03 PM] Nick: then refute and then conclude
[9/8/2009 5:30:50 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Please clarify? What would you like the debate to look like?
[9/8/2009 5:32:15 PM] Nick: We both have our topics. We have a into vid then 3 I have 3 vids and you have 3 vids and then we refute those vids. Then conclude
[9/8/2009 5:37:21 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: So do you mean what You start with a intro, then I have an intro, then we have 3 rounds of back and fourth, concluding with a final statement from each of us?
[9/8/2009 5:37:38 PM] Nick: Yes
[9/8/2009 5:37:53 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Ok.
[9/8/2009 5:38:02 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: When would you like to start?
[9/8/2009 5:38:50 PM] Nick: I might hava a video up today if I come up with two more ideas
[9/8/2009 5:46:41 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: The reason I asked is that I have a busy week at school (it just started this week) and will not have a lot of time to make a video, BUT can bust one out on Saturday.
[9/8/2009 5:48:23 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: So...how about this as a schedule (which is the next thing we need to talk about anyway): the debate starts Saturday with your Intro. I will produce and post an intro the same day, after yours, and then you will post a response.
[9/8/2009 5:49:01 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: How many days would you like between your Intro and the response to my intro?
[9/8/2009 5:49:20 PM] Nick: I have time on the weekend and Tuesday
[9/8/2009 5:51:54 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: So does that mean that we should have the times between each section as being 3 days??? IE: you post your intro and I post mine on Saturday. You will then post a response on Tuesday and I will do the same. AND then we continue with this pattern?
[9/8/2009 5:52:35 PM] Nick: Yes that is fine because I will have enough break to do my homework
[9/8/2009 5:54:26 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Nice!!! Ok, so I will await your intro on Saturday before posting mine. On Tuesday I will post a response to your intro after you have done the same and then we can work out dates for the additional responses and rebuttals at this point.
[9/8/2009 5:54:41 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Does that sound like a plan?
[9/8/2009 5:54:49 PM] Nick: Good plan
[9/8/2009 5:57:05 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: So to clarify right away I would like to point out that ALL Great Apes (humans, chimps, gorillas, and oranatangs) besides humans have 48 chromosomes, while humans are the only Great Ape that has 46 and that is the topic we are debating with its relation to evolution.
[9/8/2009 5:57:29 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Also I suggest that we have to give references to our claims
[9/8/2009 5:57:45 PM] Nick: Yes I will give URLS
[9/8/2009 5:58:01 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Would you limit yourself to only peer reviewed references?
[9/8/2009 5:58:22 PM] Nick: Yes
[9/8/2009 5:59:29 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Nice. Ok, so I will post this conversation on my blog (given your permission) and advertise the debate on YouTube. Sound like a plan?
[9/8/2009 6:00:22 PM] Nick: permissiongranted and thank you for asking because I know qdragon1337 does not ask
[9/8/2009 6:02:47 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Not a problem Nick. I'll contact you with any additional clarification, questions and references before Saturday and please feel free to mirror my advert video on YouTube before the debate. BTW http://scientiaperceptum.blogspot.com/
[9/8/2009 6:05:04 PM] Nick: My blog although I forgot about it until you brought up yours http://www.blogger.com/home?pli=1
[9/8/2009 6:05:18 PM] ScientiaPerceptum: Thank you

There are a few things I would like to point out.

First of all Nick gave me permission to post this conversation at 6:00:22.

Next, we agreed (5:26:09) that the topic of debate was going to be why all great apes besides humans have 48 chromosomes while humans have 46 (although Nick only points out chimps as an example in the above text). I must say at this point that I thought this would be the only subject for this debate, but I guess I should have specified that before closing the conversation.

Lastly it should be pointed out that Nick agreed (5:58:22) that he would back up his claims with PEER reviewed sources.


So, this being said, Nick posted his first video Yesterday, the 11th of September, with a range of topics following the route of obfuscation I like to call "The Hovind Hop"©, which is just a version of the "Gish Gallop". Due to this fact and that the majority of topics he has decided to tackle are not not limited to evolution I will change the debate title to "Creationism vs. Science" to better reflect what is being discussed.

Of course Nick did not give one peer reviewed reference to back up his claims, so I'll remind him of his agreement to do so during my opening statement. I also feel that it will be necessary to point out in my opening statement that he has now chosen the topics he wishes me to address and that responses should be limited to subjects brought up in my rebuttals and the topics of my opening statement.

Well, let the fun begin!

Eric Hovind's Grand Mistake

I just watched Eric's "Grand Canyon" video here and posted this comment on his blog

Eric,

I just thought, for now, that I would point out a HUGE error in your video.

From second 32-35 you state and point to the entrance and exit of the Colorado River, BUT you mixed them up and pointed at the wrong sides. You first point to the Northeast part saying it is the exit, when in fact it is the entrance of the river into the canyon. You then point to the West part and say the river enters here when, in fact, this is the exit.

Oops a major mistake, but on par with your facts about science in general so maybe it was a Freudian slip.

Better luck next time,

SP

Now before pointing out his inaccuracies about the scientific facts of the formation of the Grand Canyon I'm going to wait to see if he posts this comment, or if he erases his video and starts anew.

When the going gets tough, NephilimFree BLOCKS you from making comments on his videos.

I woke up today (Sunday January 11th) and watched a few new videos from channels I subscribe to on YouTube. One of the videos was from NephilimFree and titled "Evolution Quickshot - Speciation"

Now although NephilimFree was one of the first people I subscribed to when joining YouTube and I've watched many of his videos, I've never felt the need to comment on anything he has posted, until today.

Before even getting through all ten minutes of his video I made a couple of comments...

Starting your video, NephilimFree, by quote mining invalidates the rest of your claim.

For everyone wondering the video was taken from Kent Hovind's "Debate #8 - Wayne State University" and if you watch the rest of what Dr. Moore was saying from that debate you will find out why the rest of what NephilimFree says is completely incorrect.

Sad attempt at deception NF!

And

A salamander and a Gila Monster are both lizards??? That is the first time I have ever heard anyone call a group of AMPHIBIANS, the Order Caudata, a reptile.

Your whole video seems to be nothing more than an argument from incredulity.

After watching the video all the way through I posted two more comments...

NephilimFree, you should really do some basic research before making a comment or video so you don't remove all doubt of your ignorance.

Point of Fact - Phylum Porifera existed in the Ediacaran and chemical markers push their existence back even older.
Phylum Placozoa dated to the Ediacarian with the fossil Dickinsonia as an example.
Phylum Cnidaria dates to at least the Ediacaran.
The origin of Phyla Annelida and/or Arthropoda can placed in the Ediacarian by Spriggina fossils.

cont...

And

cont...

Phylum Mollusca can be pushed back to the Ediacaran with the fossil Kimberella.

AND then comes the fact that MANY, to many to mention here, Phyla come into existence AFTER the Cambrian including most Phyla of plants.
So it is completely FALSE that "...all phylum (sic) and body plans of life came to be at once." in the Cambrian Explosion.

Also how is a KIND defined in a way that a taxonomist or evolutionary biologists could understand? What animals/plants are in the same kind??

I was hoping that NephilimFree would give his reasons for making such inaccurate statements for why he thinks that salamanders are LIZARDS and when Phyla are known to appear in the fossil record, but instead he blocked me from being able to make any further comments.

At the same time he made the following scientifically inaccurate assertions (my comments are in quotations)...

"Phylum Mollusca can be pushed back to the Ediacaran with the fossil Kimberella."

We do not observe new morphological feautes [sic] arise(ing?) in mollusk fossils.

"Phyla come into existence AFTER the Cambrian including most Phyla of plants"

None. All phylum [sic] and body plans appear in the Cambrian.

Firstly we do observe "...new morphological..." FEATURES arising in mollusca after the Cambrian with the best example being the most recent molluscan: The Class Scaphopoda did not exist until the Ordovician. Besides this, new morphological features show up in mollusca throughout their history as verified by anyone researching the evolutionary changes in molluscan Orders, Families, and Genera over time.

Secondly all, I will repeat that ALL, land plant Phyla do not come into existence until after the Cambrian with the first appearing in the Ordovician. The first vascular plants do not appear until the Silurian and the most recent Phyla, the Angiosperms, do not appear until over 350 million years after the Cambrian.

Next NephilimFree said...

"Also how is a KIND defined in a way that a taxonomist or evolutionary biologists could understand?"

The closest relation to evolutionist taxonomy is family, as I stated in so many words in the video.

"What animals/plants are in the same kind??"

Do your own homework.

According to NephilimFree a “creationist KIND” is defined as a taxonomic Family. Really??? Ok if that is true then according to NephilimFree Oranatanges, Gorillias, Chimpazees, and Humans (along with all extinct homonids like Australopithecenes) are the same KIND since they all fall within the Taxonomic Family of Hominidae.
Thank you, NephilimFree, for admitting that Humans are Great Apes, now I hope you will retract the statements in your video that deny this.

I've done my homework, now do your own.

What next...

"you should really do some basic research before making a comment or video so you don't remove all doubt of your ignorance."

I know more about evolutiosm [sic] than you do obviously, since you think phylum [sic] arose after the Cambrian.

"Phylum Placozoa dated to the Ediacarian"

Radiometric dating uses a material of presumed age as the control for calibration. It is not capable of dating anything.

Since I've already proven that many Phyla postdate the Cambrian period I will skip to your a comment by you that negates EVERYTHING you have to say about the occurrence of when new morphological adaptations occur.

If you, NephilimFree, claim that radiometric dating is "...not capable of dating anything." then I don't know how you can even begin to claim that "All phylum [sic] and body plans appear in the Cambrian." since to claim this you have to rely upon radiometric dating. I guess you cannot make any claims about the ages of fossils, the origins of new morphologies, or ANYTHING relating to the geological ages of anything.

Let's continue...

"by quote mining invalidates the rest of your claim"

I quote a scientist and that invalidates something? You are totally lost in space.
Not surprising. You're an evo!

"and if you watch the rest of what Dr. Moore was saying from that debate you will find out why the rest of what NephilimFree says is completely incorrect"

Moore is as lost as you are.

You, NephilimFree, did not quote Dr. William Moore, instead you mined the beginning of a rhetorical statement in a debate and showed this in your video out of context as an introduction to your entire argument and everything you said afterwards. Your intellectual dishonesty for not posting ALL of Dr. Moore's definition/commentary on how speciation is defined in biology negates everything you claim in the rest of your video.

Since NephilimFree does not want Dr. Moore to define speciation then I suggest that everyone watches the debate. It can be found on YouTube in sections and the entire debate can also be downloaded from various sources online.

What one will find is that species, according to science, are defined in different ways and one must understand these definitions before making an agrument either for or against speciation or if speciation has occured. Since NephilimFree does not address the different definitions or any known instances of speciation then we cannot rely on his statements that it does not occur.

Next comes my favorite responce by N.F. about a statement he made in his video. Between 5:53 and 6:05 he said...

Take for example, uh, a Gila Monster and a salamander, are they the same kind? Well certainly not. They're both LIZARDS of a different kind.

I found this statement so ignorant of reality I had to ask N.F. if he really thought this was true.

"A salamander and a Gila Monster are both lizards???"

National Geographic:
ht tp : // animals . nationalgeographic . com / animals / reptiles / gila-monster . h t m l

"the venomous Gila monster (pronounced HEE-luh) is the largest lizard native to the United States."

Totally lost are we?

NephilimFree is again claiming that SALAMANDERS ARE LIZARDS.

As you can see from my comment above I said "That is the first time I have ever heard anyone call a group of AMPHIBIANS, the Order Caudata, a reptile." but instead of correcting his mistake (did you even look up Caudata NephilimFree???) or admitting that he was wrong NephilimFree gives a link about a Gila Monster.

Well to answer your rhetorical question: Yes, I think you are lost.

Caudata are an Amphibian (not Reptile, like Lizards) taxonomic Order that includes all Salamander species.

Evolutionists never cease to amaze me with thier ignorance. That's why I issued my challenge to them.

ScientiaPerceptum, you would serve yourself well to take that challenge. You would not make a goon of yourself so much if you actualy understood evolution theory and the evidences which destroy is [sic] so thoroughly.

Well NephilimFree apparently I cannot take your challenge and prove that the ignorance, about the scientific reality of Evolutionary Biology, is yours when you block me from posting any further comments on your videos.

What are you so afraid of me saying? If you allowed me, someone with an undergrad in Evolutionary Biology, to reply to your claims are you afraid that your subscribers would learn the extent of your ignorance of the facts that make up the Scientific theory of Biological Evolution or do are you afraid that you would have to apologize for your incredulous and inaccurate statements???

At this point, you, NephilimFree, have proven that like almost all creationists that your only evidence for the pseudoscience that you spew is censorship of the scientific reality.

S.P.

A reply too long for the YouTube Comments regarding a01011399's Jan 3rd 2008 video

On January 3rd 2008 YouTube user a01011399, a.k.a. Daniel, made a video response titled "re The word Evolution and why Hovind should never be trusted." to user k87jury which can be found here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddtkANheDjs

The same day I responded to his comments and a mini debate began. Instead of dealing with the limited space allowed there I have moved the "debate" here.

Below is my original post followed by our "debate" in the comment section.

ScientiaPerceptum
If you dont understand these terms (or understand the terms of a debate) then how can you even start to address any of the above topics.

In essence, you have failed before you even start.

Before you start a debate, you need to understand the terms you will be debating in their context. Next you need to stick to the rules of the debate (which means you need to stick to the topic), and last you need to supply real information instead of relying on your ignorance as an excuse.

a01011399
evolution has many different meanings, that is why you have to define evolution

ScientiaPerceptum
Wrong Daniel!!!

In science evolution has ONLY ONE MEANING and that is the point you "don't get".

In science evolution is: "The process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations (change in allele frequencies over time). Biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generations."

If you, Daniel, say again that "evolution has different meanings" then you should be labled a LIAR.

a01011399
Nope stellar evolution and biological evolution are 2 different things
Besides your definition for evolution sounds more like Mendel laws. Darwinian evolution is much more that just ´´change in the allele frequencies´´

a01011399
´´The process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations´´
Creationists also accept that, so are you suggesting once again, that creationists and evolutionists agree?
You definition is not accurate and it is misleading, a better definition for evolution is: ´´the idea of complex organisms coming from simpler forms

AND

a01011399
yes I do undestand that, what I don´t understand is why are evolutionist making such a big deal with this

ScientiaPerceptum
The reason that Scientists, among them Evolutionary Biologists, make "...such a big deal..." about "...this..." is that if one does not start out using the correct terminology with the correct definitions then it is USELESS to start a conversation.

It has been shown, and continues to be seen repeatedly (you, Daniel, are a perfect example), that CREATIONISTS (Anti-science advocates) build strawmen of real scientific concepts and deliberately derail discussions by misusing vocabulary.

a01011399
Ok kent hovind describes the 6 different kinds of evolution, (cosmical, chemical, stellar, organic, macro and micro) and he claims that if you are going to debate you have to specify what the debate is going to be about. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with that, but you might have a different opinion, so tell me why is hovind being dishonest?

After this back and forth I wrote the following and intended to place it in the comments section, but found my comment became too long. I am hoping Daniel will reply here, but we will see where this goes now.



Again, Daniel, you are WRONG!

You do not seem to have the capability comprehend how words are used when one is talking about the SCIENTIFIC definition. Being that you have proved this as FACT based on your previous statements, I will start over and take this a little slower for you so you can work through your ignorance.

1. Words sometimes have different meanings depending on the CONTEXT in which they are used.

2. I will ONLY (AGAIN ONLY) be discussing and defining words based on their SCIENTIFIC meanings (which I’ve already done above).

3. In SCIENCE the word EVOLUTION only pertains to the field of BIOLOGY.

4. If you use the word EVOLUTION outside of the field of BIOLOGY in a SCIENTIFIC discussion then you are using it incorrectly.

5. In SCIENCE there is NO SUCH THING as cosmic, stellar, planetary, or organic evolution. Again there is NO SUCH THING in science as cosmic, stellar, planetary, or organic evolution, these DO NOT EXIST when you are using the word evolution in science.

6. IN SCIENCE when one is talking about the history of the Universe then we call that PHYSICAL COSMOLOGY which is under the SCIENTIFIC field of ASTROPHYSICS. See the word PHYSICS? Do you know the difference between PHYSICS and BIOLOGY in SCIENCE Daniel?

7. IN SCIENCE when one is talking about how Stars form and their “life cycles” we would also ask a scientist who studies ASTROPHYSICS, but one that specializes in Stars. Stars form when a giant molecular cloud undergoes gravitational collapse. To understand how stars change over time we then refer to the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.

8. IN SCIENCE stars and planets form from the same materials, but the model used to explain how planets occur is called the Solar Nebular Model under the field of ASTROPHYSICS again. Around a young star, a protoplanetary disk will occur and lead to the formation of planets by accretion of the surrounding nebula.

9. IN SCIENCE how the Earth has changed over time is described by fields of science called GEOLOGY and GEOPHYSICS, can you say GEOPHYSICS Daniel? See how the words GEOLOGY and PHYSICS are combined?

10. IN SCIENCE the study of how life came from non-life is called ABIOGENESIS and is contained under the field of CHEMISTRY. There are many different scientific models, theories, and hypothesis under the study of ABIOGENESIS and thousands of scientists worldwide that contribute to the scientific understanding of how inanimate matter could have formed the first living organisms.

11. IN SCIENCE, under the field of BIOLOGY we have the study of how living organisms change over time from the FIRST life until today and that is called EVOLUTION and is studied by those in the field of EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY.

12. EVOLUTIONARY THEORY in science is, again under the field of BIOLOGY, defined various ways, but they all have the same meaning. Here is definition different from my previous one above, BUT having the same meaning: “Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.”

In essence, BIOLGICAL EVOLUTION says that the changes, again CHANGES, in a populations genes determined by the interaction of that population with its environment (natural selection) can lead to the formation of unique morphology and/or behavior over time allowing for the divergence of a new isolated interbreeding population, which is different from, but related to the parent population. These genetic changes continue to add up leading to new species, genera, families, orders, and classes of organisms within a genetically nested hierarchy.

Your, Daniel, ignorance of how BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is defined is evident in your feeble attempt to equate it with Mendelian inheritance which SAYS NOTHING about genetic changes. Mendel’s Laws only refer to the segregation of EXISTING genes and their independent assortment.

Your strawman of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION as simple organisms giving rise to more complex ones also proves your ignorance since EVOLUTION is NOT directional since EVOLUTION only deals with POPULATIONS and not individual organisms and those populations can LOSE acquired traits and genes allowing the daughter population to be simpler then the parent population.

The main problem you, Daniel, have is that you, as a anti-science creationist, do not accept the FACT that acquired heritable changes in a population’s gene pool can lead over GREAT PERIODS of time, millions/billions of years, to changes such as an limbless and jawless aquatic vertebrate giving rise to a tetrapod land mammal and must bury your head in the sand to ignore the convergent evidence from fossils and genetic analysis.

Until you, Daniel, learn the REAL SCIENTIFIC evidence on which the FACT of BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION is based you will continue to be mislead by deceptive snake-oil charlatans who are selling lies under the guise of religion.