From: "L. Aron Nelson" <ilcunl@hotmail.com>
To: <Mozart533@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Hello.
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:55:35 -0600
Hi. I am NuclearX (fake name), and I am a member of a teen forum that was discussing your article, "You are an Ape." I am seriously considering accepting your challege to debate the creation/evolution topic. However, I will need to know exactly what the conditions are. I checked debate guidelines on the web, and I would strongly suggest that we follow them were we to debate. Here is the site url: http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/DebateGuidelines.html. I will also need to know exactly what can be discussed. Just evolution? Or would you also be willing to debate abiogenesis and evidence of the flood (not the Ark)? Also, what is the best way for you to debate? I would prefer email, as it is faster and more reliable then a posting forum.
The debate guidelines you suggest require moderators, which I would normally insist upon. If you would prefer a moderated debate, (which really would be the better option) then I suggest that we do this on Usenet. If we do it on Talk.Origins, you will be able to read input from a number of others, hopefully attempting to represent both sides. However, you will neither be expected nor required to reply to anyone but myself. The other advantage is that the entire conversation will be automatically archived verbatim. That can be crucial when dealing with creationists, especially if they ever "turn pro". However, since you are so young, I will allow you the option of a private discussion as per your request.
Aside from the moderators, the guidelines you suggest are certainly suitable, and I'm very surprised to see a creationist suggest them. But then, I've been offering this challenge on various news groups and discussion forums for at least three years, and no one has ever accepted yet. Well, once, but he backed out immediately refusing to answer even the opening question.
That's because it is not possible for a creationist to win in any forum where evidence is to be adequately presented or discussed. That's why Hamm, Gish, Morris and the like all insist on only debating before a live audience, and why they demand time restrictions that prohibit appropriate discussion of any point. They certainly don't allow any opportunity to refute all the weird nonsense that falls out of their mouths on stage, not on a point-by-point basis anyway. That's also why their debates are usually held in churches or on TBN, but never at a university where the audience would likely know the real issues.
With a written debate, all the relevant evidence may be presented, and each point can analyzed and scrutinized in-depth to vindicate what is really true, and expose what is certainly not. In other words, every error you make will be discovered, revealing true realities by elimination. Also with a written debate, it isn't possible to peddle absurd video tapes, bumper stickers and your latest tripe in paperback. That's why Joe Baker, Kent Hovind, Dr. Luke Randall and a few other professional creationists have all refused or ignored my challenges to them dispite their many claims that they will debate any evolutionist any time. Once they realized it was to be a written debate, they all threw out their excuses. Baker accused me of having religious dis-belief, as if there could really be such a thing. "Mr." (not doctor) Hovind pretended that he couldn't type fast enough, and that it would be inconvenient to compose replies at his liesure from the comfort of his own home. But for some reason, flying to my town at his own expense isn't inconvenient for him at all, as long as there would be an audience to sell his BS to. And Dr. Randall simply said he was too busy. Well so am I, but I still think your request deserves my attention.
My conditions are few and very simple. Answer every direct question and properly address every point or challenge. Of course I will have to do the same. I will bot bombard you. I'll try to be concise, and ask as few questions as the conversation demands. You'll have a week to respond to each email, and I will allow more time if you ask for it. I will give you a few chances if you skip over something important, but if you repeatedly ignore uncomfortable challenges and refuse to concede critical points that are clearly lost, then I win by default. Will we need moderators to make that determination? If instead of ignoring my queries, or just skipping over those things you can't deal with, you choose to actually counter or excuse each one in an appropriate manner, then all you will have to do to win is not to admit defeat in or before the 12th mutual exchange. How easy is that? It really makes you wonder, doesn't it? Why none of the "full fledged, creationist biologists" would ever dare debate me in public forum?
I'm telling all this because I want you to know up front that I can debate every creationist there ever was, and win every time, not because I am smarter or better than any of them, but because they are wrong. I am not an "accredited biologist". I am only a high school drop-out. Other creationists have used that as an excuse to refuse me too, because they couldn't impress their readers by debating me unless I had a Ph.D. Hopefully that wasn't why you thought you should take me on. The only good reason to do that is to test your own accuracy.
Remember, my only goal in this is to prove to your satisfaction that biological evolution really is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species. That is the proposition, though I did also say I would prove there is no alternative Theory to choose from. So I will of course be concentrating on evolution. But if you feel that abiogenesis is relevant, we can explore whether it really is or not. As for ye olde floode, I'm sure that will be important to you too, so feel free to bring it up. But contrary to what you believe, you don't really have any evidence to show me, and I promise you won't like what I have to show you. I can also prove there never was a global flood.
By the way, proof can't be reversed. So if I prove it didn't happen, you would know that it didn't happen, and couldn't turn around and prove that it did. Earlier you said you "proved creation" just like I "proved evolution." But if I had proved evolution then, you would be some flavor of evolutionist now, as you will be before this is over.
Creationism consists of willfull deceivers and the innocently deceived, and you seem to genuinely believe in your position or you wouldn't have insisted upon the very things that none of your leaders would allow. So I'm afraid this is going to be a painful awakening for you. But if you're honest as I am, then you would rather know an ugly truth than to believe a beautiful lie. Hopefully you'll go the distance, and won't feel compelled to twist the truth, project your flaws onto me, or run away as so many of your commrades have already done when they realized which position was best-supported, and why.
From: Mozart533@aol.com
To: ilcunl@hotmail.com
Subject: Hello.
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 03:31:32 EST
It is funny that Hovind's excuse is that he cannot type fast. I cannot type at all; I still hunt and peck! As for the Usenet, I am not familiar with it at all. I looked it up on the Internet, and the people who were supposed to explain it could not even explain.
I will be honest, as you say you will be. If you prove something is not as I thought it was, than I will concede to your point. I will also try to be concise, and answer every point, as you will.
You are right, we should not need moderators if we both approach this with open minds, and a non-aggressive attitude. I am not suggesting that we not be aggressive with our debate, but I do not like to be aggressive or sarcastic to people as a person. In other words, I do not think that you are a horrible person just because you believe in evolution, unlike some people I know.
I genuinely believe that Creation is correct, and that is why I am going to attempt to debate you. I think that since I know that God created the earth in 6 days, I can find a way to prove that either evolution is not correct, or that creation is.
When do you want to start? And how are we supposed to start?
PS, I am also going to store every correspondence between us in Microsoft Word, so I will have a record of this debate for my future reference, and anybody else's reference if they need or want it.
Thank you, NuclearX
