This is one reason I don't like the formal debate format.  It's too easy to slide a point by.  In a written debate, this would never be allowed to stand unchallenged.

Another flaw in the debate format.  It's not about truth.  It's about charisma.

My best guess is that it's a double standard issue.  If a non-biologist tries to debate a creationist, the creationist will immediately pounce on his lack of knowledge of evolution.  "See," he will say, "you are just as ignorant of evolution as anyone else, and you're going to stand there and tell me you know it's true??  You have just as much faith as me!"

Debate over.  Victory for creationist.

True.  I think a good philosopher would be a good opponent for most apologists.  However, theists are wary of philosophers, too.  Remember, the wisdom of man is foolishness in the eyes of god...

I think the bottom line is that in most of these debates, there are three types of people.  Atheists who are already convinced, theists who are already convinced, and the four crying babies that should have been left at home.

I agree.  However, there are so many false assumptions about an evolutionary worldview that it would take two hours just to get through the fallacies.  Just look at how crazy our prostitution conversation got -- and we both agree on the basics!

I'm afraid that there's a fundamental problem with this kind of debate.  Understanding evolution takes time and effort.  Understanding theism takes emotion and gullibility.  In any short term debate, the edge will go to emotion and gullibility.

Might as well hire the KKK to do promo spots for evolution. 

I agree that the humanities and social sciences are sorely underrepresented in the quest to educate the public.  However, I think that part of the problem we have in America is woeful lack of basic scientific understanding.  Now, what I'd really like to see is a tag team match with a biologist, a philosopher, and an anthropologist.

Come to think of it, Americans are woefully uneducated in all of those fields. 

~sigh~

We do say that.  And when we do, they say things like, "See!!  I told you science doesn't know the truth!!  They admitted it!!  Let's go to church!"
 

It doesn't.  No evidence against god is necessary since there has never been any evidence for god that passed scientific, logical, or philosophical muster.

This is a non sequitur. We weren't even discussing the concept of "God". We were discussing evolutionary biology.

Actually, this is untrue. We are well on the way to explaining the origin of life. It is part of the discipline of biochemistry. The mere fact that you weren't aware of this because you don't know any biochemistry is your problem.

And excuse me, I must vent:

Goddamnit, why the fuck are you so incoherent all the time. Your posts are garbled and virtually impossible to understand. Write bloody properly, or not at all.

Now, switching to address the original poster.

This is a good question for me to answer because I am a biologist and I do debate creationists. As an aside, I am also a trained philosopher, which helps alot. But I usually don't allow my opposition to get off the ground at all. Observe the following exchange:

Me: Before we begin I think I should confirm the fact that you know precisely what you are critiquing. Do you know the 5 theories which fall under the scientific definition of evolution? And by extension, the three principles of natural selection, the centerpiece theory?

Them:...No

*Akward silence*

Me: Interesting. You are attempting to critique a concept that you don't even know the definition of? How do you propose to do that?

More Silence

Me: I think you should leave and save further embarassment.

This exchange, which is very common,  takes advantage of the fact that most creationists wouldn't know evolution if it kicked them in the balls. Hence, we should immediately appreciate the fact that despite that many of these people are ardent opponents of evolution, an infinitesimal percentage of them have taken the 30 seconds on Wikipedia necessary to find the answer.

I'm going to say this once as simply as I can, so listen closely - evolutionary biology provides evidence against any and all literal readings and a good many metaphorical readings of the biblical creation account.  All arguments for a creator god based upon the word of the bible in those specific terms are thus utterly utterly failed.

Any holy text that claims some form of supernatural creation of man as is, meaning that such said deity created man as we are now, becomes invalid because evolution shows that no supernatural creator was/is required.  As such science can rule out god via these methods of deduction.

the debate reminds me of study cargo cults i did for my anthropolgy of religion class i took. the belief of cargo cults always believed it was near the end of the world and that their god was going to reward them with materialism from the ships which is a reason i think they are called cargo cults. dont worry when the christians these cargo cults were inducive of christian religion to a point because it had simuliar beliefs and they thought it was the end of the world so why not join even more rewards from their supreme being and they would be rich. now that has gone a rye but they keep going back to their cargo cult beliefs with a new belief and someone claiming they were the puror faith and their god punished them because they were not right so they are stuck on believing this and not rich monetrial societies but they pass the time doing this i guess.

in the way the cargo cults always trying to make its faith perfect. the creationalists are tring to cling and peserve their faith instead of realize even if their belief is not the way it happened it was used as an allogeory just like the adam and eve story is allogoricial or one could say a parable. throughout my studies once people believe something they will stick to it no matter how unreasonable it is and anything that agrees with a lot of it they will use it to keep their belief alive because thats the right thing to do in their mind.

so i dont think we will ever see the end of debates with a belief system because it seems to be common to a lot of groups throughout history. and major civilizations in south and north americas had beliefs that they lived by. for example the Mayan culture and the Aztecs and also the Incas so based on history i do believe it not going away but it might in the future but i don't know if it will because of how long people devout to religous beliefs!

i hope i was able to help out i am sorry if i didn't i just notice religious beliefs people normally dont let go unless utterly forced to which makes it hard to understand to someone using reason yet on the other hand they think they are useing reason and logic and the ones that are disagreeing and questioning them are irlogical so it is sort of like going up againest a belief and both sides think the other side is irrational and crazy but thats my opinion of how to answer this question!

Evolution is the bait and switch of theological discussion. The hot button that the theist push to get us reved up and tear assing down the wrong path.

It puts us on the defensive, essentially switching the burdon of proof, to a subject that has not a DAMNED thing to do with whether a god exists or not.

When asked to explain 'How we got here', the proper response is;

"I'm sorry you slept through basic science classes in High School."

"Now, How did your god do it? Step by step if you will, with evidence as to how it works."

I want a witnessed, verified act of special creation.

I want to see the results of tests of this creationist theory.

I want to know how it might be falsified, so that it can be shown to be a legitimate theory.

I want to know what predictions creationism makes.

The onus is ALWAYS on the theist to prove their point of view.

LC >;-}>

If you don't play the game, you don't make the rules.