I posted several more comments to the Guest book in answer to Kyles comments to me,
but they were screened out by the webmaster and never appeared. 
So I posted them to Talk.Origins instead with additional commentary. 

WasDarwinRight.com claims they will be happy to arrange a public debate with any evolutionist who thought they had evidence for the "molecules-to-man theory".  But for some reason, when I showed up, they weren't too happy about it, and would only allow me to post to their guest list, refusing the public forum written debate that I had requested.  Where I was to reply to thier charges, I was forced to include part of those questions in my 700 character response in quotes.

All posts to that guestbook below take about 24 hours to appear.
Actually evolutionist challenges take 24 hours.
Creationist refusals don't take that long.

But its been going on three days now, since I posted the comments recorded below,
and none of them have been posted yet.  I wonder why?

Then I listed all the points I sent to their guest book that they refused to post. 

[in answer to a supposedly racist quote in Charles Darwin's "The Descent of Man".]  Today, what were once labeled "races" are now seen as demes, more varied in culture than biology, and not separate races as they were thought to be in Darwin's day. But even today, anthropologists recognize that all extant human demes descended from a dark-skinned variety in Africa. What we call black races diverged first, meaning that the "Negro" races have much more diversity now than any other group. Then the Australoids and Dravidians went their separate ways, followed by the Orientals and Caucasians. Its not a racist statement to say that the root of the human tree is black, and there's no negative connotation in that, much as you want there to be.

"I was able to do it [debate scientific evidence] succinctly and quickly, with references. [Answersingenesis.org] So why can't you?" For the same reason you failed in your attempt, though you don't seem to know it. You weren't able to adequately defend your position in the space allowed. All you could do was to was say you doubted mine. Well uh, we know that already.  Now how well can you defend your position on scientific grounds, which are much more in-depth? So far, you haven't produced even one scientific reference. A scientific reference is also one that is published in peer-review. Nothing in the whole of the creationism movement is peer-reviewed nor could be being faith-based. That's one reason its not really science but religion.

If you consider AiG to be a scientific authority, then you're in hot water on your own front as they warn their readers not to listen to the arguments you employ. In fact, they have a list of "doubtful arguments creationists should not use", yet you do anyway. Remember your earlier comments about the Castenedolo remains? Well, your own favorite reference lists that as an argument you *definitely* should not use.
Next time try a scientific reference.

"I would hesitate to entertain an individual if their sole purpose is to wind in circles with equivocations on definitions of words. Indeed, science means "observable, repeatable, and measurable in present time". Gravity can be observed and measured in real time. Miraculous genetic increases in functional complexity cannot." That's exactly right. And if you can't even understand the argument or the definitions, then how can you pretend to refute them in a science class?

My "sole purpose" in this debate is to satisfactorily prove that biological evolution is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species. I'm not satisfied with merely believing any position, I want to confirm how accurate it is. And while your evasiveness to this point is intriguing evidence in my favor, it isn't yet conclusive. That's what I want; the opportunity to demonstrate publicly and conclusively that creationism is nothing more than the willful denial of anything that runs counter to your idolatry of the Bible. You attack evolution because that's all you can do as there is no scientific evidence pointing to creationism, just complaints about evolution.

"Ahh, so the genetic mechanism that increased the functional complexity was embedded alongside the fossils?" Yes, in a manner of speaking. You see, the thing that distinguishes science from religion is that science seeks to test itself, assuming it must be wrong about something somewhere. To this end, Darwin said that many fossils of intermediate forms should be found if his theory were correct. And they have been, where creationists predicted they would not be, and where you were less than honest when you said they still haven't been.  He predicted DNA too, (by description) saying that his theory would collapse without it.

"Notice how any of this relies on a-priori interpretations on ambiguous evidence of unobserved history past?" No. In fact, I see this as an investigation where any reality may be revealed.   "Sounds like faith is exercised here." If faith is defined as a secure confidence in the accuracy of one's position, then yes, I have that where you evidently don't. As a matter of probability, my position will likely prevail again because it always has. If faith is defined as religious faith; a firm conviction in lieu of evidence, then I propose that neither of us has that, as you shouldn't have such reservations about a formal debate for consideration by any school board.

My position is not based on faith. Stephen J. Gould was one of the last scientists to believe there should be some genetic gap between major taxonomic groups that could not be bridged by cumulative "micro" evolutionary stages. Richard Goldschmidt believed that macro evolutionary change was determined by special processes -systemic mutations and saltations- not found operating at the microevolutionary level. Neither was ever able to identify any actual limit to genetic diversity, and thus the field concedes there is no gap in nature between micro and macroevolution. "Organic evolution is a unified whole".
--The Evolutionary Process 2nd edition, Chapter 31, by geneticist, Verne Grant

"Absolutely nothing has confirmed in real time observationthe second, which is counterintuitive and illogical(that complexity, info, and matter arises from nothing by itself." Fortunately, that's not what I'm out to prove. I intend to prove the scientific validity of evolution, not magic. Speciation has nothing to do with any of this, but it did happen, even according to your own pseudoscientific references.

"How has the increase in genetic functional complexity ever been observed, tested, repeated, measures in real time?" Good question. Words like "functional complexity" only seem to have meaning to creationists. And since you claim to have seen decreases in genetic "information", then I have to ask how you know it has decreased or increased? Give me any example and provide for me the numeric value of how much information that thing had to start with, and exactly how much of that has been subtracted in the new form. If you can't quantify it, you can't claim to see its reduction. So how much "information' does a ovaraptor have? How much does an emu have?

You asked for undotted cladogram links for trilobites?  How about this one? I drew it myself.
And since you mention eyes, I should point out the dozens of eyes in the tails of the horseshoe crabs, which are more indicative of incidental rather than deliberate design, more in line with evolution than creation. From the first trilobite on through the implied line, each example is in order according to the geologic column. So the important question is where in this image is the limit of genetic diversity? And where is "information" increased or decreased? Can it be quantified either way? Or was that a baseless assertion?

"All the evidence in every relevant field of study supports evolutionary Theory exclusively." Really?"
"You mean the areas that rely on testable, repeatable, observable means to confirm the theory, and not basing it on a peer-pressured philosophical starting point to conform the evidence to as such?"
That's right. I'm not talking about creationism.

Unable to argue against evolution, you must instead move the goals back to abiogenesis. Next you'll no doubt try to involve the Big Bang as if that were somehow related to evolution. But I'm not trying to prove abiogenesis or quantum fluctuation. Nor am I trying to disprove a "creator" of the first life. But evolutionary mechanisms since then have been observed, all with prior "functional complexity" of course.  And that's what I intend to demonstrate conclusively, if you would grant me the opportunity to do so.  Obviously you won't. You're clearly unable to take me on in public forum despite all your posturing about circular arguments and other allegations that simply don't apply.

"Indeed, you have a long way to go to sell Ambulocetus as a true "walking whale".
Seems that quite a few important features are missing from this specimen."
Then look here
"It is much more complete than most fossils, missing only the tip of the snout, scapula, humerus, distal part of the tibia and some ankle bones. It is the only amphibious whale in the world for which most of the bones of the limbs are known." So it and Rodhocetus, Pakicetus, Dorudon and Basilosaurus are all transitional intermediates you obviously knew about, yet claimed none had ever been found.

"This article also brings up the issue of the peer review process in paleontology, and how caution seems to be lacking in some respects in this field" Then accept my challenge to debate me point-by-point in-depth and in detail as to why, so that there can be no question about it. I don't think you're as confident as you want me to think you are.  And this article from your favorite "scientific' reference condemns Kent Hovind, your "all-star of creationism" for dishonest practice.

Craig Hampton, I'm not surprised that you've heard all of this before, and knew about all the things you deny on your site, even when your own colleges admit to them. But I've refuted every argument here countless times myself.  And when I see such easily-demonstrable falsehoods "taught" to schoolchildren, I am justifiably concerned. I don't have (or need) the faith you're trying to project on me. And if you would force this indoctrination in public or private schools, then how can you not defend that to me in ready-reference publication for those schools to consider first? Where there are adequate resources to confirm for certain who is right and who only believes he is.

Scientific observation and peer review fortunately are not outdated practice. Theocracy and propaganda however are. Facts are observed, measurable, testable and invariable, not subject to interpretation.  Theory is the explanation of those facts, and that is and should be subject to revision as warranted just as theology *should* be. Believe it or not, its not evolution I'm trying to promote. Its dogmatism I seek to discredit. That's why I'm involved in these discussions. Refusing to question your dogma is automatically self-deceptive, and believing things without question and without reason is insane.

"Where, might we ask, did the emu gain the genetic complexity for any number of its features from a hypothetically "lesser" ancestor, from its eye to its lung system to its locomotive system to its mental faculties, etc?" Here is the problem with these 120 word snippets. It becomes impossible to adequately answer questions like this one properly, much less show your work. The short answer? From its parents. All evolution is at any level is variation, slight variance in the size, shape or chemical proportion of any part of the form.  There is no "new information" as that cannot be quantified or qualified as such. There are just subtle differences which tend to be cumulative over time.

"Perhaps then you could show me what the hypothetical mechanism is that INCREASES genetic functional complexity (not a mechanism which reduces it," Perhaps you could show me any means of quantifying "functional complexity' so that we can tell for sure if its decreasing or not. If you can't tell me how much less or more it is, then your whole point is meaningless.

"We have NO idea just what the original archetype was for these (nor many other) animals." Yes we do. All ratites are descended from smaller paleognaths ancestral to the tinemous. This is according to mitochondrial DNA which indicates a divergence at about 40 mya, as I've already explained on my site with (I think) reasonable evidenciary support for that conclusion. They couldn't be related to anything else. The only other surviving birds are paleognaths with developed sternums, sealed sutures in their skulls, etc. That sorta narrows the list of options.

"To castigate the one and to endorse your equally metaphysical claim of "genetic increases from time immemorial" is hypocritical." Then you are a hypocrit, with no means of quantifying "information" even to know if it can increase or decrease. And since all of my postulations are evidenciary, nothing about my position is beyond nature. Lest we forget, you're the advocate for magical creation, not me. I'm a naturalist, remember? Now what does that mean? It means there's nothing metaphysical about it. Why do religious people insist on thinking objective people are too? Why do I still believe that evidence and reason will change their minds as it does mine?

This comment board may be fine for AIMers, but it is a silly way to try and have a serious scientific discussion. If we're to continue this, let's do it right. If you think you can defend creationism as a scientific option in public school, then let's publish our emailed discourse on the web to prove it *to* the schools. If you're game, then all I'll add to my original proposal is that either party must answer every direct question posed of them, and must properly address all counterpoints or challenges less they formally concede them. All of this should be peer-reviewed of course, if is to be scientific. If you have a counter proposal, post it, so we can either get started or quit.

This is the end of my list of posts that never made it to the guest book. 
Having been blocked from there, and unable to correct the things still being said about me in that forum,
I continued to comment about that to Talk.Origins

For two whole days, no new comments appeared.  Then whole new conversations showed up without hint of any of my comments above.  I did get a response via email, but all that consisted of was the list of mined quotes on the thread "Hi ho hi ho, a-mining quotes I go". [upcoming] I responded to that, mentioning the points above that were absent from their page, but the only reply I got was that the sender refused to debate me, and would not reply to any future emails from me.  It seems  then that the only way these comments will be seen by the public is if I post them to the google groups archives, [done] and publish our entire conversation on a website, as promised.  Any suggestions?

BACK                                                                                                                                                                                        NEXT