text:
E v. C
|Voting Style:
|Point System:
|7 Point
|5 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|4,534 times
|Debate No:
The proposition under consideration is:
"Resolved: It is more likely, based on the evidence we have, that the currently accepted cosmological paradigm (including evolution) is close to correct than that the YEC position is correct."
"Equally likely" is agreed on by both debaters as an incorrect answer, thus, BoP is shared, and Con is expected to establish the greater likelihood of his case, and Pro is expected to do the same.
"More likely" in this case is, essentially "has more rational basis". Neither side will be expected to give an actual probability here; we're discussing which one has more rational basis to be called "closer to the truth" (with the understanding that the scientific paradigm has room for change and correction, while the YEC paradigm does not).
This debate will focus primarily on Evolution vs. Creationism, but since we're talking about Young Earth Creationism, Con has more to establish than simply a greater likelihood of Creationism; for the purposes of this debate, the only major other proposition that Con is expected to defend at the outset is the Young Earth one; due to the nature of Young Earth Creationism's conflicts with what is considered to be the scientific establishment, however, other issues may come up in the course of the debate.
It is understood that Con holds the bible to be inerrant, in keeping with the philosophy posted in this link:
However, no truth value is assumed in the debate without further evidence, though Con may be held accountable for any inconsistencies with that premise.
Both sides are encouraged to be as concise as possible; I've set this debate up with plenty of space, but we all know folks get bored with walls-o-text.
Having established these rules, I'll let Con go first to establish the preliminaries of his case; Con will leave the last round blank to equalize.
I accept this debate and without further ado will begin. Firstly, the rules state that no truth value is assumed without further evidence. I take this to mean that both debaters have to argue from first principles.
I would like to remind voters to vote based solely on the arguments that will be presented forthwith, and not based on preconceived ideas, since this is a from-first-principle debate.
In keeping with the definitions, I am assuming a dichotomy in which there can be only two logical options. Creation (YEC), or Evolution. Arguing against one gives support for the other.
In my opening arguments, I will not present something as though it only supports my position. Instead, I will try to present arguments that compare the two models in regard to the evidence. I will only present two arguments in this first round, I might introduce new arguments in round two.
The first argument I will present is in regards to the genome.
C1: Genetic Degradation
The genome is known to be highly degradational. In fact, the vast majority of mutations is known to be degradational. Nachman has shown that [1] there are about 175 mutation events per generation. These mutation events do not calculate the number of mutated nucleotides per generation, but the number of events per generation. In fact, Sanford has shown that mutations, calculated in nucleotide changes per generation, is in the thousands. The number of degradational mutational changes in nucleotides per generation outweigh the beneficial mutations, counted in the same way. [2] (10:00)
Even without accounting for genetic noise, which prevents natural selection, most degradational mutations cannot be selected against. This is because the degradational effect of each single nucleotide is so small as to be almost negligible. This is much like small single letter changes in the above paragraph. Individually, they do not much degrade the information I am presenting. Combined, however, their effects is devastating in a way that would lead to extinction. So much so that evolutionary geneticist researcher has estimated just from mutation and recombination rates in the genome that humans would die out in the next 20 million years (Starting 2006) [3].
The paper in [3] only calculates Muller's ratchet from the mitochondrial chromosome, which undergoes recombination during reproduction. When the entire coding portions of the genome is considered, ignoring the regulatory portions of the genome, the time to extinction is reduced drastically, as shown by Sanford in [4].
I hope the readers are still with me here. The second reason why degradational mutations cannot be selected against is that they are intrinsically tied with the few beneficial mutations through a phenomena known as linkage blocks. This theory states that during recombination, whole sequences of genes are "linked" together rather than each individual gene being separately passed down to the next generation.
This brief introduction to genetic degradation (Of which there is strong evidential support, as seen by my sources) leads us to consider two things.
The first is the question of which of the two models predict degradation. The evolutionary model cannot predict degradation. In fact, it predicts just the opposite! From the theory of common descent, we should expect that we would see more beneficial mutations than degradational mutations. (Note: beneficial and degradational do not relate at all to the environment, but are contextual strictly within the genome. See [5]) If there were more degradational than beneficial mutations, then it would be impossible for evolution to occur. In fact, it would not be possible for stasis to occur either (See next argument).
This then brings us to the comparative of Creation. Under this model, it is assumed that degradation has occurred since the (supposed) Fall of man. (I will put (supposed), and such words, in parenthesis around supposed time events of both models to ensure no truth value assumptions) From this view, genetic degradation is consistent, and is in fact a prediction, of the model.
So the evidence is much better explained under the Creation model for this topic.
C2: Living Fossils
In this argument, I will present one organism as an example. The others will not be mentioned yet. This animal is known as an Ostracod, and is "by far the most common arthropods in the fossil record" [6:9] Fossils of this animal have been found from the Cambrian to the present. This is a stasis of 425 million years [7].
Within this time period, all the most common organisms, like fish, mammals, reptiles, et cetera, have all evolved. All other than this little "seed shrimp." This little piece of factual evidence (Of which there are many more similar examples) forces us to do a comparison.
Evolution predicts change over time. Perhaps in the case of this shrimp, it was so well adapted that it could survive without ever needing to change, thus exhibiting "evolutionary stasis." This is a plausible answer, the only problem with this is that it makes the model unsinkable. To put it in simple unforgiving terms, I will quote Dr Werner, from an interview in [8].
"If you whole-heartedly believe in a theory, you will always be able to sustain that belief—even in the face of contradictory evidence—by adding a rescue hypothesis to that theory. For example, if a scientist believes in evolution and sees fossils that look like modern organisms at the dinosaur digs, he/she might invent an hypothesis to 'explain' living fossils this way: 'Yes I believe that animals have changed greatly over time (evolution), but some animals and plants were so well adapted to the environment that they did not need to change. So I am not bothered at all by living fossils.' This added hypothesis says that some animals did not evolve. But if a theory can be so flexible, adding hypotheses that predict the opposite of your main theory, one could never disprove the theory. The theory then becomes unsinkable, and an unsinkable theory is not science."[8]
The second point to note is that even if stasis had occurred, genetic degradation would have caused the extinction of that organism (population).
On the Creation model however, stasis is no problem, since from this model, organisms can never become something other than their "kind," which God (supposedly) created. Thus, it should not be expected from this model that change so drastic as that from a small wormy creature to the current diversity we see would happen.
To Pro for this first round. I hope that I've not assumed anything outside of first principles. (Well, not so first, I'm not a textbook)
1. http://www.genetics.org...
3. http://journals.cambridge.org...
4. http://www.amazon.com...
5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
6. http://en.wikipedia.org...
7. http://creation.com...
8. http://creation.com...
"...I am assuming a dichotomy...Arguing against one gives support for the other" is not true. In a shared BoP such as has been established for this debate, each side must not only rebut their opponent's case, but must also establish their own. While the terms of the debate made clear that "Equal" was a "wrong" answer, if I only successfully rebut all of Creationism's arguments, I have done nothing to establish the likelihood of evolution/old earth's truth, though it would only take one argument unrebutted to do so. In other words, if neither one of us fulfills our burden of proof, then nobody wins, and disproving evolution does not prove creationism.
I will also ask Con to not use videos for further sourcing for practical purposes. Moving on:
"The genome is ...highly degradational" is misleading, particularly in light of how Con uses it further down. Genome degradation is synonymous with genome reduction. While the genome can degrade, and while "sequenced genome data are practically biased toward small genomes"[1], it can also increase. For example, "...in the wild rice species Oryza australiensis, for example, amplification of three TEs accounts for a 2-fold increase in genome size."[2]
Con's second source is not reliable. However, "In fact, the vast majority of mutations is known to be degradational." -- does no harm to the theory of evolution. Evolution predicts that; this description of what actually happens does nothing to harm a theory that takes that into account. In fact, it does harm to the creationist theory: if god made every species exactly as we see them today, it would stand to reason that there would be no mutations.
I also ask Con to clarify what he means by "degradational"; again, as noted, genome degradation means the reduction in size of the genome, and it doesn't not appear he is using it in that sense.
"...genetic noise, which prevents natural selection..."
Genetic noise does not prevent "natural selection", and saying so is a completely unsupported proposition. Natural selection is nothing more than "the gradual, non-random process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers"[3]; it has been witnessed in action countless times. Also unsupported is this statement: "most degradational mutations cannot be selected against." Mendel was showing that selection happened in the 1800s for traits[3]; and anyone who owns a dog has seen the effects of selecting for traits. It happens. Natural selection is just when it's done naturally.
"... humans would die out in the next 20 million years (Starting 2006)..."
I can only read the abstract of that paper in Con's 3, due to it being a pay-to-read paper, but it clearly says that it's discussing "Muller's Ratchet", a known issue posited for asexual reproduction that, while it describes a specific pattern of events, has not been established through any studies as being consistent fact, and ignores back mutation. It also doesn't take into account the fact that many organisms that were once considered asexual are now known to exchange genetic material [4].
Further, that the paper might establish that the human race may go extinct does absolutely nothing to address whether evolution is true or not; posting it as though it's a fault with evolution is simply an appeal to emotion. Finding fault with a theory because of a prediction you don't like, as opposed to finding fault with it for making a prediction you know to be untrue, is not a legitimate way to reach the truth.
"degradational mutations cannot be selected against...they are intrinsically tied with the few beneficial mutations through a phenomena known as linkage blocks..."
This is, again, a blanket assertion with no basis in fact. While I can easily concede the fact that whole sequences of genes are "linked", that does not mean that all "degradational mutations" (by which I continue to assume Con means deleterious mutations) are always inextricably linked to "the few beneficial mutations" (by which I will assume Con means advantageous mutations). I concede that ones that are linked may not be selected against, but Con has not shown that that is always the case. Thus, deleterious mutations can be selected against; perhaps not all of them, but that would be perfectly in line with the theory of evolution and genetics as we understand it.
"The evolutionary model cannot predict degradation...it predicts just the opposite! From the theory of common descent, we should expect that we would see more beneficial mutations than degradational mutations."
That is simply not true. The theory of evolution only states that there will be both advantageous and deleterious mutations. It doesn't say anything about what their relative prevalence will be and, in fact, generally predicts that, due to the random nature of these mutations and the narrow window of "advantageous" compared to the relatively wide window of "deleterious", that there will be more harmful mutations than beneficial ones. "In summary, it is generally accepted that the majority of mutations are neutral or deleterious, with rare mutations being advantageous; however, the proportion of types of mutations varies between species." [5]
"If there were more degradational than beneficial mutations, then it would be impossible for evolution to occur..."
Con has, once again, made a completely unsupported assertion.
"Under this model [of creationism]...degradation has occurred since the... Fall... From this view, genetic degradation is consistent, and is in fact a prediction, of the model."
I believe I've shown how Con has misconstrued the evidence he has presented, and how the idea of deleterioius mutations does not, in any way, harm the evolutionary hypothesis. Based on the model being presented by Con, where deleterious mutations are a result of man's fall, one would expect to find NO advantageous mutations; as we do see advantageous mutations [6], the creation model fails to explain the topic sufficiently. It posits no mechanism further than evolution.
The fact that some species will not change over time means only, in evolutionary terms, that no beneficial mutations have occurred. Just as a dice roll may come up 6 many consecutive times and not invalidate the theory of probability, a few species lack of change over time does not invalidate evolution, no matter how many quotes Con posts that try to claim the contrary based on assertion. These so-called living fossils do need explanation, and the explanation we have is satisfactory.
"The second point to note is that even if stasis had occurred, genetic degradation would have caused the extinction of that organism (population)."
That which is asserted based on no evidence, can be dismissed on the same grounds, particularly since this "degradation" was established by Con.
"On the Creation model however, stasis is no problem..."
The creation model that Con has proposed also says that we should expect deleterious mutations, since they all come from the time of man's fall. Con has yet to provide an explanation for why different species are "degrading" at different rates, if there is a single cause, and Con has yet to explain why some species degrade and some don't. If Con proposes that this is a result of random changes, and that some will be beneficial but most won't, then Con concedes evolution, which is nothing more than that.
Con has spent this round mostly attacking concepts of evolution, and spent little to no time establishing his own case. As I've reached the character limit, I can't do much more.
[1] --http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] --http://www.hindawi.com...
[3] --http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] --http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] --http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] --http://en.wikipedia.org...
Let me clarify my stance regarding the dichotomy and BoP. By arguing against one, I provide support for the other. However, the support is in no way firm unless I present arguments making it so. In this debate, I will address Pro's arguments by small quotations instead of a long explanation of what I am rebutting.
"not use videos"
"Genome degradation is synonymous with genome reduction."
This does no credit to my argument. I have already cited Cornell professor and geneticist Sanford, who uses the term genetic degradation interchangeably with genetic entropy. Remember that his book was in proof-reading stage before Nilsson et. al. published their findings. If one were to argue that Nilsson is older, it would only be older than the publishing date by ~two months. Secondly, it is important to note that the term "Genetic degradation" occurs nowhere in Nilsson et. al. Thus, Pro is arguing against a straw man. I will be using the term "genetic degradation" for the remainder of this debate, since it is historically used to refer to informational degradation rather than size reduction. The WP article on Muller's ratchet has correctly identified "genome reduction" as "genetic shrinkage."
"Con's second source is not reliable"
This is an assertion which relies on the "truth value" that creationist sources are unreliable. This is illogical for several reasons. (1): It does no credit to the fact that this is actually a creation-evolution debate, and I am allowed to use such sources. (2): Pro has only one peer-reviewed source, whereas I had multiple such sources. His source has no scientific input, whereas my source has reliable information from Prof. Sanford. This type of argument to authority is not fallacious, as per [1].
"if god made every species exactly as we see them today"
This is an incorrect caricature of the YEC position. The YEC position is much different, and I even elaborated on it in the first round. I will not do so here.
"Genetic noise does not prevent "natural selection","
Perhaps I should have added the word "effective" before natural selection, but that would do no difference to the way the argument was treated. All of these statements are supported in either my round one's (4) or (5). In fact, this idea of the "survival of the luckiest" has strong support even in the evolutionary community [2].
"Mendel was showing that selection happened in the 1800s for traits"
Pro does not understand my arguments here. I am not arguing that traits, as in phenotypes, cannot be selected against/for. I am arguing that the mutations in single nucleotide bases cannot usually be selected. The concept is equivalent to that of a car sitting in the open air to rot, as my R1 source (2) showed, with support from Prof. Sanford. Pro is arguing against a totally different concept which I do not in the slightest dispute.
"has not been established through any studies as being consistent fact, and ignores back mutation"
Pro has in this section repeated uncritically the Wikipedia article. It is unfortunate that the exact portions of his citation has a primary source in Wikipedia. I could easily use my wikipedia editor account to say that "Muller's ratchet has been in recent years been debunked as pseudoscience." I wonder if Pro would have copied that as well. The whole concept of Pro is that Muller's ratchet only works in the case of asexual creatures. This is not so. In contrast, it works just as well for sexually reproducing creatures as asexual creatures.
"posting it as though it's a fault with evolution"
It is not that it is a prediction I do not like. In fact, even though I support the Creation model, it posits that humans would go extinct. It is not due to distaste or dislike, but in fact due to the fact that it opposes evolutionary changes, which cannot work with degradation of the genome.
"that would be perfectly in line with the theory of evolution and genetics as we understand it"
The whole idea of linkage blocks is that there is far too many degradational mutations within each mutation block. Selecting against one such linkage blocks merely means that it is exchanged for another one just as degraded. Arguing that it can be beneficial makes no sense. This point makes no sense.
"generally predicts that, ...more harmful mutations than beneficial ones." "unsupported assertion"
The fifth reference of Pro, to an article on Mendel, does not at all contain the quote Pro attributes to it. This is the first error. It is, indeed accepted, that degradational mutations outweigh beneficial mutations, but that does not mean that it is a prediction of evolution. Saying that it is is worse than even evolutionary stasis. For evolution to work, it is a requirement, and therefore a prediction, that beneficial mutations in terms of genetic information must outweigh degradational mutations. Despite Pro accusing this argument of being unsupported assertion, he himself has no source either to back up his assertion or his statements. The argument has not been refuted or even addressed.
"Con has misconstrued the evidence he has presented"
I believe we are on different genetic pages. Pun intended.
"deleterioius mutations does not, in any way, harm the evolutionary hypothesis"
See my previous round, where I made mush of this. Source (4) has an even better explanation, but I believe mine is sufficient.
"one would expect to find NO advantageous mutations"
This argument is a caricature of the YEC position as well. In fact, it is the prediction that Pro has unsupportedly claimed that evolution makes that Creation makes. (See R1 source 2, which Pro wrote off.)
"the explanation we have is satisfactory."
Pro has not even attempted to address the argument that evolutionary stasis is an oxymoronic term. "Evolution" in its simplest term, means "change over time" and stasis means "no change." Satisfaction with an explanation does not prove its soundness. Pro has unfortunately broken his own rule of: "no truth value is assumed in the debate without further evidence."
"Con has yet to provide an explanation for why different species are "degrading" at different rates"
The whole purpose of the arguments is not in relation to the rates at which they degrade, but that they degrade, period. As I have shown, Pro is using a wikipedia definition of degrade, which is actually supposed to be "shrinkage."
I believe I have addressed everything of importance. I have established strongly through comparative evidence that the Creation model is a better fit to the evidence than the evolutionary interpretation. Pro has relied on a non-peer-reviewed definition of the term "genetic degradation" to argue against my R1 argument, and breaks his own rules, unfortunately.
Pro has provided no support for his argument that the evidence supports evolution. At most, he has argued against my arguments without establishing his own case. He has no arguments of his own. By assuming that evolution is true until proven false, he has broken the rule cited above which I took great pains to sidestep.
I would like for Pro not to use Wikipedia as a source when it is itself unsourced. I would also request that my position (YEC) not be caricatured.
Thank you for your reply. I hope for a better next round.
1. http://www.nizkor.org...
2. http://www.readcube.com...
My opponent has yet to establish a single argument in favor of his motion.
I apologize for my mis-numbering; it should be obvious to the reader that the 5 should have been a 6.
As regards to my opponent's second source: I originally explained why it was not reliable but ran out of space. It was unreliable because it did not contain any actual evidence, only assertions. The fact that it was a creationist source was immaterial my complaint about it, rather, I was complaining because it was a source that made many assertions with no foundation, and the only thing I saw that it cited was something that I cannot reference. I did not watch the entire video, nor do I intend to, but the place at which my opponent referenced (10:00) was simply not a reliable source of information. This is part of the problem with video evidence, and why I asked that my opponent refrain.
This is in contrast to Wikipedia which, despite my opponent's claims, is far from "unsourced". I welcome him to scroll to the bottom of any page, where the "References" section is located.
My opponent complains several times about a perceived "caricaturing" of his arguments. He has not made any in support of his position yet, and has yet to actually say what his position is; it is therefore impossible for me to caricature it. If he would like to actually establish his position next round, I would welcome it.
He has also once again filled the text box, such that I cannot possibly make my argument and rebut his points. Thus, I will not be rebutting his points this round. Instead I'll be making at least part of my own case.
And so:
Evolution says that small changes happen. This is an undeniable, witnessed fact. It says that changes which hurt an organism will hurt its chances of reproduction and, therefore, make it less likely for that harmful change to be passed on, while changes which help an organism will help its chances of reproduction, and, therefore, make it more likely for that beneficial change to be passed on. We can, with trivial ease, duplicate both these things in the lab; no creationist can deny these thigns without denying evidence they could easily have before their eyes. Indeed, Con has already admitted that there are both beneficial and harmful changes to organisms.
Where the disconnect seems to occur is, that evolution says at a certain number of changes, an organism is sufficiently removed from its original state to be "speciated". This does not mean that the animal is so vastly different than its parents that it is unrecognizable, but rather that it has reached a point where it is different enough from the original species to be reproductively isolated.
The quesion is, how did this speciation occur? The Creationist, in particular the YEC, says, "There is a god. He created the world 6000 (+/-) years ago. He created every animal in basically its current form. Evolution doesn't happen."
What this ignores is that Evolution DOES happen. Provably, demonstrably so. The YEC, in rejecting evolution, is creating an artificial distinction between so-called "macro-evolution" and so-called "micro-evolution". The YEC draws a line at an arbitrary point and says "no animal can change, genetically, enough to get past this point". They establish no mechanism for that (and Con has yet to propose one). Perhaps it is so, but the YEC has no evidence to establish that it is so.
Science presumes consistency. We see that small changes can add up to big changes, and science has given us no reason to suppose that there is some line of demarcation that species cannot change past. Thus, science says that it seems most likely that the process of animals changing over generations continues until one, eventually, gets wildly different species. The YEC attempts to show how unlikely that is, but considering it's post hoc argumentation, it's quite a bit like trying to tell an arbitrary lottery winner they didn't win, because the odds of THOSE SPECIFIC NUMBERS coming up are astronomical.
In this debate, we're asked which is most likely closer to the correct answer. We know, for a fact, and even Con agrees, that some measure of evolution happens. So we must ask, which is more plausible:
That the universe is exactly as old as all the evidence shows[1], and that the mechanism we've already seen work on the smaller timescale of human life[2] explains the variety of species on the planet?
Or that a deity (whose existence Con has failed to establish), came down 6000 years ago (a timeframe Con has failed to specify or establish) and made first the universe, then all the animals in roughly the same form (or "kind") that they are now, and that they cannot change "kinds"?
Until Con establishes some kind of case for the necessary elements of his position, it seems clear that the most likely answer is the only one that has any evidence to support it, that is, an old earth, upon which evolution has produced many different species.
[1] http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...
[2] http://www.talkorigins.org...
"[Con] can establish the truth of creationism by attacking evolution"
As I said, there is a difference between providing support, and affirming it. Pro does not acknowledge the difference, which is not mundane.
"yet to establish a single argument"
Pro has yet to refute my argument regarding evolutionary stasis, which is firmly supportive and in favor of my motion. He has dismissed the argument simply because it contains a quote, and that the paradox is "satisfactory."
"5 should have been a 6"
This means that you 5 is unnecessary. Why source it in the first place?
"it did not contain any actual evidence, only assertions"
The title of the series is "Creation Magazine Live." The purpose of the show is to explain in layman's terms that which is semi-technical, but peer-reviewed, and published in said magazine. If Pro wanted, he could easily have located the articles in question and would have seen numerous sources in support. The (10:00) I was referring to cites my (4) as a reference. My arguments tie together neatly. It is not only a reliable source of information, but an expert source of information, because it comes from the (retired) Professor Sanford, geneticist and primary inventor of the gene gun. This is not unreliable, since almost all GM foods are derived under his invention.
"Wikipedia...is far from "unsourced""
Let me quote myself: "It is unfortunate that the exact portions of his citation has a primary source in Wikipedia." From this statement, it is easy to infer that most portions of Wikipedia is sourced. Indeed, I myself use wikipedia, but only for statements that are sourced. Pro quoted an unsourced portion of the entry. Now, at best, he could argue that it references Muller's original article, but that would be a missource because Muller definitely provides a reason for ignoring such phenomena.
"impossible for me to caricature it"
Let me once again quote myself: "organisms can never become something other than their "kind," which God (supposedly) created" (I will not repeat allegations of rule breaking by Pro in the previous round, as he has done so again, I will just cite the new cases.) This is enough to show that kind=/=species, and that the statement that God created "species" is false. It is also apparent that by "degradational" I refer to the net effect of mutation.
Pro then goes on to provide supposed evidence for the evolution model. As my argument regarding stasis is unrefuted, and that regarding genetics is well defended, I will simply go to his arguments, but not in quote form. (Pro cannot complain that I filled the textbox, it was his idea to let me start)
Let me start with a brief overview of his argument. Pro repeatedly and undeniably breaks his rules. Over and again, we see that he does not begin from first principles.
Throughout the round, Pro uses a debate trick called equivocation. This, coupled with his extensive use of the fallacy of parts-to-whole, make his arguments easy to refute.
Firstly, let us go through the basics. Evolution and young earth creationism overlap somewhat. You see, to have a debate, we have to disagree about something. I suppose Pro would agree to that. However, this distinction of "micro-" and "macro-" evolution, was made in 1960 by an evolutionist philosopher by the name of Kerkut. He stated, and I quote,
"There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the 'Special Theory of Evolution' and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the 'General Theory of Evolution' and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place." [1]
You see, the YEC do not deny STE, it is even part of the YEC paradigm. The YEC deny GTE, and that is what Pro is supposed to be defending.
Pro gives us numerous examples of STE, which nobody disagrees with, and claims that they support GTE. This is the fallacy that I refer to. By conveniently switching between the two theories, one of which is a subset of the other, Pro fantastically commits two fallacies in the same argument.
It is not the fact that no animals can be naturally altered genetically past a certain stage but that there is absolutely no evidence of such. It is the BoP of Pro to provide such evidence, aka. evidence of GTE.
Pro then goes on to break his own rule that "no truth value is assumed in the debate without further evidence." Pro assumes that GTE is true, and expects the reader to assume so as well.
I will not directly refute his evidence in so many words, because to do so would be to take on an unrequired BoP which Pro is trying to shed on me. Instead, I will dumb down my arguments to the same level as his. Providing sources. Now all that matters is the quality of the source.
For the age of the universe, see these articles: [2], (Rightfully, this alone should be enough, but I will do more than this), [3], [4].
Speciation and the implications for evolution: [5], [6]
The thing about our sources is that all of mine are strictly peer-reviewed. I purposefully chose only that which is peer-reviewed.
On the other hand, Pro's sources are popular science sources, or public edit sources. Now back to Pro. Please provide some evidence for the Grand Theory of Evolution, rather than assuming its truth and demanding I present evidence against it.
1. http://ia600409.us.archive.org... (p. 157)
2. http://creation.com...
3. http://creation.com...
4. http://creation.com...
5. http://creation.com...
6. http://creation.com...
"Pro has yet to refute my argument regarding evolutionary stasis, which is firmly supportive and in favor of my motion."
No, it isn't. In the first place, Con has failed to MAKE any points about Creationism. He has failed to establish what he means by it specifically, what it predicts, or how we'd test for it. He has maintained it as a nebulous concept, all the better to equivocate himself, while claiming it is me doing the equivocating. How, specifically, does evolutionary stasis support Creationism?
As regards the quote: No. I said that the EXPLANATION we had was satisfactory. There is no paradox. A quote is meaningless if the argument is bad. Einstein could have said "Planes cannot fly, because nothing that is heavier than air can fly", this would not make it a true statement. And trying to claim that the equilibrium of an individual species is a "failure" of evolution is a ridiculous argument. Evolution relies on random changes, of which only the neutral or beneficial continue (in the broad sense). That some species wouldn't have beneficial changes, and/or wouldn't change much, is just a facet of probability.
If Creationism were true, however, I would expect a certain consistency, as there would be no reason, then, to have that element of randomness. Of course, as Con has not stated what his argument IS regarding Creationism, it is difficult for me to really know what I should expect.
"This means that you 5 is unnecessary..."
No, I referenced Mendel, I just gave listed [3] rather than [5].
As regards to the video, it is not my job to find the arguments in support. Con cited a video that cites a book, but doesn't give any contextual reason to believe either that the quote, itself, is relevantly in context, or that it is based on sound reasoning.
Further, that Professor Sanford has done good work does not excuse him from stepping into cosmology (a field he is NOT an expert in), nor does it mean he is always right; if this were the case, then all the scientists on the opposite side of the fence from him would be equally right, and therefore Con has conceded! Obviously, this is not the case. Con makes a simple argument from authority, and it fails on those marits.
As to Wikipedia, let ME quote Con : "I would like for Pro not to use Wikipedia as a source when it is itself unsourced."
"Indeed, I myself use wikipedia, but only for statements that are sourced. Pro quoted an unsourced portion of the entry. Now, at best, he could argue that it references Muller"s original article, but that would be a missource because Muller definitely provides a reason for ignoring such phenomena."
So, Con complains that I point out things that Muller ignores, then goes on to say Muller has reasons for ignoring such phenomena. That means that, 1, the point was valid, and 2, that Con is being disingenuous. If he concedes that the statement is true, complaining that it's unsourced (when it's a description of something) is ridiculous and dishonest. If he would like to provide Muller's reasons, he may feel free to post them in support of his argument. In the meantime, I ask him to stop being so fundamentally dishonest as to complain about sourcing when he agrees with the description. This is akin to a child who, when told he shouldn't have hit is classmate, says "I didn't do it! And anyway, I had a good reason for why I did it."
""impossible for me to caricature it"
Let me once again quote myself: "organisms can never become something other than their "kind," which God (supposedly) created" (I will not repeat allegations of rule breaking by Pro in the previous round, as he has done so again, I will just cite the new cases.) "
Stop. First of all, Con's conduct is insulting. What rule have I broken? Second of all, Con still has not made his case...this is one aspect of it ONLY, and one with an undefined term, no less. Upon what does Con base that? We know that change happens. Con conceded this. So now, it is up to Con to show why there is a point beyond which change cannot happen. And it is up to Con to define his "kinds" term.
"This is enough to show that kind=/=species, and that the statement that God created "species" is false. It is also apparent that by "degradational" I refer to the net effect of mutation."
Define Kind. Which you haven't done. Again, I repeat my demand: Make your actual case.
"As my argument regarding stasis is unrefuted,"
Con's argument regarding stasis is invalid. It does no harm to the evolutionary model. Con has continued to make assertions about what "must" be true for evolution, but has not established why the stasis of some species harms evolution, nor how the stasis of some species and the change of other species supports Creationism.
As regards to filling the text box, I'd point out that I specifically asked that we attempt to be concise. Instead, Con have consistently filled the box, making multiple argtuments to attack portions of the evolutionary model, while providing exactly zero evidence in support of Con's own model and, indeed, never actually providing his model.
I must demand Con stop attacking until he has made some semblance of a case for his own position; as has been noted several times, attacking the opposition does nothing to establish Con's case.
"Let me start with a brief overview of his argument. Pro repeatedly and undeniably breaks his rules. Over and again, we see that he does not begin from first principles."
It was, in fact, Con who mentioned first principles. And, Con as consistently not used first principles. I encourage him to look up what those actually are, because he hasn't used any, and his complaints about "rule breaking" fall so utterly flat as to make me question his honesty.
"Pro gives us numerous examples of STE, which nobody disagrees with, and claims that they support GTE."
While Con claims that there is a mechanism to prevent what he calls GTE, despite the fact that it is simple accumulation of STE. It is up to Con, who has conceded small changes, to prove HOW these small changes cannot add up to a large change, of "kind" (a word Con continues not to define).
"It is not the fact that no animals can be naturally altered genetically past a certain stage but that there is absolutely no evidence of such. It is the BoP of Pro to provide such evidence, aka. evidence of GTE. "
Nope. It is up to Con to establish specifically where that line is, and why change cannot happen past it, because that is Con's assertion. This is akin to someone claiming erosion on large geologic scales doesn't happen; we've shown it happening on small scales, but we haven't been able to see it on large scales simply because we haven't been looking for long enough. Of course, with erosion, there is no evidence of how the item looked originally, just that erosion has happened, yet with evolution we have an extensive fossil record showing changes over time.
For Con's next points:
Sorry. Between the insults, the false accusations of fallacy, and the false accusations of rule breaking, I'm having a hard time maintaining civility. Con, YOU accepted a shared BoP. Trying to claim, now, that there isn't one is fundamentally dishonest of you. You have the BoP of your assertions. You have yet to give ANY proof of them and haven't even made your case for your own position!
We know that Evolution, at some level happens. It is now up to Con to establish HOW it doesn't happen on a larger scale, if he hopes to argue that it is more likely that God did it.
It is also up to Con to establish an argument for why the standard cosmological view of the universe is unsound, which is necessary for YEC to be true. He has not done so.
It is also up to Con to establish an argument for God's existence. He has not done so.
Con has 1 more round to establish those points. If he has not done so, he has failed his burden.
It is not infrequent that one would find straw man and the like in arguments against the YEC position. This does not translate to the false hypothesis that Pro is being disingenuous. Nor does the fact that arguing for the YEC position, qualify one to be labeled as a disingenuous person. Rather than entangling myself further in petty accusations and as such distracting from my main points, I will argue slightly against Pro, then restate my first arguments in a way that will take into account any and all of Pro's objections. This will allow for a rebuttal to those points where Pro has not already addressed my arguments.
Firstly, what exactly is a "kind"? It seems that this word is causing vast confusion in the Pro camp. "Kind" is the English interpretation of the Hebrew "min." "Bara" means "Create". Therefore, "Baramin" simply means "created kind." I will link to two articles on the subject, which should have been familiar to Pro. [1][2]
Pro claims that small changes as experimentally observed, changes that validate STE, will give rise to GTE. An assertion implies that it has no support or reason. The truth is quite contrary, however. In fact, this argument is made not only by YEC, but by evolutionists themselves. See [3]. At a conference comprising of some of the world's leading evolutionary biologist, R. Lewin had this to say, "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Let me be clear on this point. The quoted persons are not YEC) So, the position that STE gives rise to GTE is one that is denied even by the experts that drive understanding of the GTE. Thus, Pro must present better arguments, even by his own standards. In fact, STE is part of the YEC position, so debating STE vs. YEC is odd because there is no debate.
My first argument relies on the either/or scenario. I first established, using multiple sources which were uncontested, that mutation driven degradation of the genome is a real and well recognized phenomenon in the genetics community. This is not a misconstruction of the data, or of the opinions of population geneticists.
Now that it has been established that I have not indeed misconstrued geneticists, let us reconsider the evidence. Muller's ratchet is only one possible mechanism by which mutational informational degradation can and does occur. As shown by L. Loewe, Muller's ratchet is not restricted to asexually reproducing organisms, but extend into the realms of humanity, which is exclusively sexually reproducing. This leaves us with the question of which model interprets the evidence better. A clear answer would be the YEC model rather than the GTE model. This is because if we extrapolate from the data a time to extinction, as Loewe did, and extrapolate into the past for the time of beginning, the dates match much closer to the YEC model than to the GTE model. This clearly is thus support of the YEC model rather than simply being an argument against a concept of evolution, of which tactic I stand accused. This is not a new argument, since it was made from the start.
The second argument is that of evolutionary stasis. The basic argument is that the YEC model much more easily accounts for the fossil without the need for such terms as "evolutionary stasis." Now, I'm not saying that it is impossible for GTE to explain such a phenomenon, but that the YEC position is a much explanation of the data than the GTE, which is all this debate is about. Pro argues that stasis is not a problem, since change can come and go from time to time. The fact is, stasis occurs under the GTE model in periods of over 400 million years, something I mentioned in the first round. Quite simply, GTE postulates that change has occurred near uniformly throughout time. Thus, any form of stasis is a problem for the GTE, but can be explained very easily under YEC. (The idea of PE cannot explain stasis either.) So what is the YEC explanation? The YEC explanation is that there has been no GTE, which is in keeping with the data, and that all of life has remained within the confines of their "baramins" (See above)
As shown, in both of my arguments, the YEC model always fits the data better than the GTE model.
Now that the main arguments have been shown not to contain any intellectual dishonesty by either party whatsoever, we can turn our attention to the more trivial matters of allegations.
The most important allegation is the charge that I am dishonest. (The charge relating to WP is a charge that will be easily dismissed should Pro ever bother to carefully read my argument, which is complex for conciseness, something he asked for. Otherwise, it would be filled with caveats. As is, I made my point)
So, the charge is that I have not begun "from first principles" and as such is "dishonest." This means that I have to build up my argument in rigorous proof from axioms. However, like I said in the very first round, "I hope that I've not assumed anything outside of first principles. (Well, not so first, I'm not a textbook)" My very first assumption was that the data given by the scientists whom I cited were correct. To be very very first, I would have to question the data itself (Impractical). From there, I explained in detail what exactly this entails for the genome. This is a strong proof of the validity of the phenomena, which I then argued fitted the YEC model better. (I apologize if no one understood what the YEC model was beforehand, that was not part of the "from first principles," which only kicks in when I want to find "truth value [in] evidence." So, my argument is good in this regard, and not in any way dishonest.
I will not elaborate on the second argument, due to space.
The second accusation is that I insulted Pro. This is trivial, and Pro should bring it up in the comments section because I do not perceive any insults from me.
The third accusation is that of fallacy. This fallacy primarily deals with equivocation and parts-to-whole (PtW). In summary, my accusation can be seen as stating that the idea that proving STE proves GTE is false because of PtW. As elaborated in this round, the idea is unsupported even among evolutionary biologists.
The fourth accusation is that of rule breaking. The rule cited above, about "truth value," was not set by me, but accepted by me. I have already quoted portions where I believe Pro broke this rule, and I will quote the last portions of his argument, where I allege that he does so again, "up to Con to establish an argument for why the standard cosmological view of the universe is unsound..." By forcing me to establish such a paradigm, Pro relieves himself of his BoP, which is to prove it sound. This means that he is assuming the truth of the prevailing paradigm rather than giving "further evidence," as demanded by his rules. Indeed, he has provided evidence for the STE, but not for the GTE. Any further allegations is out of the scope of this debate, and should Pro repeat them, shall be dealt with in the comments section. As easily seen, in no case have I been dishonest in the slightest. In fact, I have consistently sought to avoid such flame wars and be as open as possible. I feel the same can be said of Pro, but that does not avoid the fact that he has made a grave allegation.
With that, I would like to reservedly thank Pro for this debate, it has certainly shown me that the definition of YEC needs to be explicitly defined from the start of the debate rather than to assume that it is already known.
1. http://creation.com...
2. http://creation.com...
3. http://www.sciencemag.org...
""Kind" is the English interpretation of the Hebrew "min." "Bara" means "Create". Therefore, "Baramin" simply means "created kind." I will link to two articles on the subject, which should have been familiar to Pro."
That is not only a definition which begs the question (Kind is "created kind", which presumes creation), but it also has no value in discussion here; Con has not defined "Kind" in a way that it could actually be applied. Is a Cat a kind? Mammal? We don't know; from Con we have only "kind means kind".
"Pro claims ..."
Again, Con needs to make actual arguments, rather than copy-pasta-ing quotes that are both taken out of context and have no supporting validity. Con has still failed to show how small changes do not add up to big changes, nor has he done anything to establish his case.
"My first argument relies on the either/or scenario..."
And is invalid. That some mutation is negative has never been contested, and does not harm the evolutionary theory. Con has consistently claimed that it does, but has given no reason why evolution, with its random changes, would preclude negative changes. As I already established, neutral or negative changes are both expected to be, and are, the majority of mutations.
"Now that it has been established that I have not indeed misconstrued geneticists..."
It hasn't.
"...let us reconsider the evidence."
Con's argument here has no merit. He presents none of the math he's claiming to use, and provides no support for why Muller's Ratchet provides no reason to "extrapolate into the past" in the manner he proposes.
"The second argument is that of evolutionary stasis. The basic argument is that the YEC model much more easily accounts for the fossil without the need for such terms as "evolutionary stasis." Now, I"m not saying that it is impossible for GTE to explain such a phenomenon, but that the YEC position is a much explanation of the data than the GTE,"
Con gives, once again, on reason for asserting this. He has not said what the YEC position actually is, beyond the "Goddidit", nor why this "goddidit" would explain evolutionary stasis more than evolution's current explanation, which is simply that the species in question are either not prone to mutations in the first place, or already suited well enough to their environment that very few beneficial and continuing mutations occur.
"Quite simply, GTE postulates that change has occurred near uniformly throughout time."
No. This is simply not true, and Con gives us no reason to suppose this. This is only yet another assertion Con makes with no evidence or reasoning.
"Thus, any form of stasis is a problem for the GTE, but can be explained very easily under YEC..."
Con continues to not define his terms or what he means by YEC. It's easy to simply wave one's hand and say "X is explained by Y", when you've never actually said what Y is.
"The YEC explanation is that there has been no GTE, which is in keeping with the data, and that all of life has remained within the confines of their "baramins""
The YEC explanation explains nothing about why some species have changed and some haven't. The evolutionary theory does.
"As shown, in both of my arguments, the YEC model always fits the data better than the GTE model."
Again, my opponent hasn't presented his YEC model! While evolution is generally understood, YEC is often un- or ill defined. By never actually defining even such simple terms as Con's "Kind", Con has created an impossible to falsify theory that makes no predictions and has no value.
"So, the charge is that I have not begun "from first principles" and as such is "dishonest."
Again, Con seems to ignore what I actually called him dishonest for:
1-Trying to avoid the Burden of Proof.
To quote him:
"I will not directly refute his evidence in so many words, because to do so would be to take on an unrequired BoP which Pro is trying to shed on me. "
And my response, directed at Con:
"YOU accepted a shared BoP. Trying to claim, now, that there isn't one is fundamentally dishonest of you. "
2-Complaining about a source's validity even as he acknowledges the content is true. He simultaneously complained that the WP article wasn't sourced well enough, and therefore the claim that Muller's Ratchet ignores certain things is to be questioned, but that Muller had good reason to ignore those things. Again, he agreed that Muller did even as he complained about a source that said Muller did.
Con has defined no terms, has failed to defend his cosmology, has presented no arguments for the existence of God, and has complained about being strawmanned while both not actually presenting a case and strawmanning evolution by making completely unsupported claims about what the theory "requires".
He has completely failed in his BoP and has, indeed, attempted to argue that he doesn't have one.
In short, Con has failed to present his case whatsoever, He does have a BoP, and he has completely failed in it. By choosing to do nothing but attack evolution, and never actually making a case, Con has not fulfilled his obligations.
While I am not an evolutionary biologist, I believe I have shown that evolution exists, and that it is up to Con to demonstrate his "kinds" hypothesis in order for it to be even considered as a limiting factor. Con chose not to do so. Evolution is not a perfect theory; few scientific theories are. And it will likely need to be adjusted as new facts and evidence come to light. But it is the best explanation for what we see, and Con has given no case why we should presume his undefined theory.
This final round is no place for a new argument. However, in closing, I'd like to sum up this debate with an analogy:
Imagine you find a hole in your wall.
"Well, it's the size of my child's fist", you reason, "So I think my child punched the wall."
"Not so," says your friend, "I don't think your kid is strong enough to punch the wall. It's much more likely the invisible unicorns".
"What makes you think there are invisible unicorns?"
"Well, your kid is just too young and too weak to punch the wall."
"Right, I get that. And he is pretty weak, so maybe he swung a toy or something, I'm not sure, but what makes you think it was invisible unicorns?"
"Well, can't you see that this wall has a hole in it?"
Perhaps it was invisible unicorns, but in order for that to be plausible, there has to be some support for the actual case.
Thank you to Con, and to the readers and voters.
You never made an actual case for a young earth. You never even touched on God's existence, even when explicitly called to do so. I call you dishonest because I do not believe this was just a "mistake" on your part; I find it hard to believe you're foolish enough to actually think you can make a case for YEC without establishing those things. Further, you were specifically instructed to ask any questions PRIOR to the debate, then started making unfounded assumptions within the debate. These things are dishonest to me.
You were expected to make your own case, to show why there's ANY likelihood of your position. If you can't establish a Young Earth and a Creator, you can't possibly establish any likelihood of Young Earth Creationism. If you can't even define "kinds", how can you possibly assert that creatures can't evolve out of their "kinds"?
As I said in the debate, I can't rebut it until you actually MAKE your case. If you don't define "kinds", but you claim no species has ever been shown to go past its "kind", how can I show you the evidence you seek? You can trivially just say "That's not a different "kind", because you never defined the term!
I asked you to define kind multiple times. The best you came up with was:
"Firstly, what exactly is a "kind"? It seems that this word is causing vast confusion in the Pro camp. "Kind" is the English interpretation of the Hebrew "min." "Bara" means "Create". Therefore, "Baramin" simply means "created kind." I will link to two articles on the subject, which should have been familiar to Pro. "
That's not a definition of any meaningfulness. And I will not go to a source to make your case for you, it is up to you to define it. You didn't.
Is inherently dishonest, because it is completely untrue. And, again, you're either an idiot, or you're dishonest, for stating it. Further, I explicitly asked you to ask any questions PRE debate, so if you somehow thought this was at all legitimate, you could have asked. You didn't.
You did not do that.
Muted: You took this debate on false pretenses. Rather than an exploration of the two sides of the debate, you proceeded to open with nothing but rebuttals and bare asseritons (It doens't harm MY side because I say so, but it destroys yours because I say so!). You never made an actual CASE, muted. You didn't defend a young earth. You didn't define your terms. You spent the entire debate cherry-picking scientific journals and making the claim that because you found something that, according to you, doesn't make sense, THEREFORE EVOLUTION IS INVALID AND THEREFORE CREATIONISM IS TRUE. However, that was not your burden; if you'd wanted to debate "Evolution is not correct", we could have debated that. Instead, we debated E v. C. And you never made an actual CASE despite a shared BoP. While I agree, that my case was weak, that was for 2 reasons: 1, you conceded in round 1 when you acknowledged that change happens, and never gave any actual reason for it to stop where you claim it stops (you never even defined Kinds, despite being specifically asked to. How could you possibly think you made a case, if that, which is central to your case as to where evolution "stops" or cannot go bast, HASN'T BEEN DEFINED), and 2, you presented a bunch of arguments against evolution. You may not like my responses, but since you never fulfilled your EXPLICITLY STATED BURDEN, to claim victory is dishonest. Or stupid. And I was giving you enough credit to say that you were at smart enough that you know better.
Again, to repeat:
"Con has more to establish than simply a greater likelihood of Creationism; for the purposes of this debate, the only major other proposition that Con is expected to defend at the outset is the Young Earth one"
You claim that I assert my case. An assertion implies that my argument has no support or reason. However, this is far from the truth. I had multiple peer-reviewed sources, while you had at most three.
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:


text:
We enjoyed our trip to Havana immensely and the apartment was wonderfully comfortable. We came to Havana with our two small daughters and they loved the upstairs room. The apartment is very centrally located and we walked everywhere. They keep the apartment immaculately clean. Caribbean Casas went out of their way to make our stay even more special. We had breakfast made for us every morning with fresh juice, fruit, eggs and cafe con leche. They showed us around and even arranged a car tour for us. To any of my friends and family, I would recommend that they stay at this apartment. The location is ideal, the apartment is lovely and has plenty of space and Yani and Ricardo are fantastic.
Articles posted in Testimonials
9 articles
Apartment was wonderfully comfortable
Casa Rita is a real gem.
Casa Rita is a real gem. From hostess Margarita to Master Chef Joan. The rooms are comfortable and the service is 5 star quality. Casa Ritas staff members stop at nothing to make sure you have everything you need; They treat you like family. The food, the music, the fun. Casa Rita's got it going on. We've returned to NYC just a week ago and already we miss our Cuban family. Abrazos Tu Nueva York Familia. Monchi y El Chino. 4U House of Fitted Caps
Cute, local apartment in the absolute center of Havana!
Cute, local apartment in Plaza Vieja, perfect for experiencing a local old Havana life. Very friendly and helpful hosts. We enjoyed our stay!
A Hidden Gem!
Casa Rico is a hidden gem! All the staff always had smiles on their faces and went out of their way to help us answer our endless questions. The house is just as beautiful as the photos, and the outdoor and indoor common areas were very spacious and comfortable for our large group. The furnishings are modern and tasteful. We had meals cooked for us by the chef and Yiri (breakfast and lunch) everyday, and the food was very tasty (everything from lobster and shrimp, beef stew, fresh juices, and salads). There are two kitchens and the back outdoor kitchen was stocked with everything we could possibly need to prepare our meals. We were able to go out to local restaurants within blocks that were very good, or head into Havana for a night out on the town. Caribbean Casas arranged taxis to head to Havana though it does take 20 minutes each way, so advanced planning is necessary. Getting taxis back home are easy enough. The beach was just 2 blocks away, and was pretty, though we didn't get to enjoy it since it rained most of the week. But thankfully Casa Rico was such a nice respite from the rain, we were able to have fun, play music, play pool, sit around an talk, all under a large covered terrace and front porch. It felt very safe since there was a nighttime security guard every night. This house is by far the nicest in the area as far as I could see. Definitely recommended for a group of people who want a touch of modern comfort in a more locals part of Playas del Este.
Well equipped, clean and calm.
We've just had a very good time in a very well equipped, clean and calm villa. Not too far from Havana city centre, we could enjoy the swimming pool and garden as well as the city. We might be back some day soon! Thanks for your welcome too.
Beautiful Location
Beautiful location. Henrry at Caribbean Casas was wonderful and welcoming and attended to all of our needs. He provided on call assistance available to settle our needs at any time of the day or night. The house was clean and all of our accommodations were met. The only complaint was no internet but this was explained in advance of our stay that while Cuba is evolving, homes equipped with internet is still not on the cards!
Great villa and quiet place.
Great villa and very quiet place. The view is great and the house is quite comfortable surrounded by trees and vegetation. Not far from the shopping area – not far from the tourist sites – not far from beautiful hiking trails. We enjoyed our stay very much.
June 2012.
Amazing Trip!
My family had a simply AMAZING trip. We stayed at Casa Nita in Siboney. The photos were completely accurate. The house was clean and spacious. The pool was super clean – and the outdoor seating area (where we had breakfast every morning) was perfect. Because it's Cuba, there were a few hiccups in securing the reservation – but Allie and Dawn at Caribbean Casas were always helpful and accommodating. By far the BEST thing about Casa Nita was the staff. You couldn't ask for a nicer, more caring or helpful team. From the chef, to the maid to the security guys – and most especially our host Henrry at Caribbean Casas – they MADE our trip incredibly special. They went out of their way to make us feel comfortable, find us drivers, dinner reservations and tours. Henrry even walked us to dinner one night to be sure we got a table (on Christmas Eve). The very best thing about visiting Havana are the people. And the very best people are at Casa Nita.
Very pleased!
Very pleased with the service and accommodation. Beautiful surrounding, near to the beach, lots of room for the children to play, large kitchen and dining room, friendly owner. Thank you for everything.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
I will never forget watching the US Men's National Soccer Team's (USMNT) 1-0 win over Algeria in 2010, and the national euphoria that followed during the next few days. It was a memorable moment for the team and its fans.
On May 22, 2014, Landon Donovan (and most of the USMNT fan base) had a very different memorable moment. That day, Donovan was cut from the roster of the 2014 US World Cup Team. Prior to that point, many considered Donovan to be the poster child of US Soccer, a position he's held for the past decade. Even though I am admittedly a casual soccer fan, this decision left me scratching my head.
I am an absolute believer that things happen for reasons, and that good things happen to good people. But how could Donovan's release from the World Cup roster be a good thing? I'm pretty sure that on May 22, Donovan was NOT thinking this news was anything even close to positive.
Since that day in May, however, I believe Donovan's future beyond the soccer field has become very bright. Below are just some of the "good things" that have come his way in the past month:
- On May 25, 2014, days after his exclusion from the World Cup roster, Donovan netted his 135th career regular season goal, making him the MLS all-time leading regular season scorer. #amazingaccomplishment
- The LA Galaxy produced a commercial featuring Donovan being the only one in the office while the World Cup is taking place. In the piece, Donovan is trying to keep up with the pace of inbound phone calls in the Galaxy office and finally yells, "Does anyone work around here?" Later, he can't find anyone to play a game of foosball with in the Galaxy break room. #thisguycanrollwiththepunches
- EA Sports released a video promoting its FIFA video game. Donovan stars in the video and at one point is humorously singing "I'm not going to Brazil" to himself. #hilarious
- Donovan has been hired by ESPN as an on-air analyst during the World Cup to provide insights only a recent player could possess. He knows the USMNT players and the players from the other teams, and has so far done a very solid job. #lookoutalexilalas
Donovan has received a different type of exposure in the past 4 weeks than what he probably imagined would come to pass prior to the May 22 cut. However, I believe the exposure has humanized him, has fans laughing with him and has increased his marketability. Donovan has taken the high road in this whole matter. In his words, "I will be cheering on my friends and teammates this summer, and I remain committed to helping grow soccer in the US in the years to come." Never once has he taken the me-first approach that many athletes would in today's world of self-promotion. His approach to the aftermath and his ability to add humor to the situation has grown his marketability to the point where I would not be surprised if Donovan has a brighter future in sports on July 14th than he would have had he been part of the 2014 World Cup Team.
Like what you see from blog author Haynes Hendrickson? Follow him on twitter at @haynesh.


text:
If you have not filed your tax return for a while, you must owe the IRS back taxes. But instead, you may have had a lot of money coming to you but you just ignored to file your taxes. All this way, when you have not filed a prior year tax return, it is always a great idea to file it today and get out of the rut.
How do you go about filing a prior year tax return now? You have some choices –
Contact a CPA
If you look up your yellow pages, you can always find a good CPA. Probably, you have done it before. Because CPAs are expensive, particularly if you file a previous year's tax return – but this is the option to be special when you are completely lost, do not have documents or are not self-confident enough. However, when you have ever self-prepared a return ever you could simply arrange your previous year return. Even if you have not even arranged a tax return yourself, if you are quite trustworthy in your capabilities, you can try to do it yourself. Thus, how do you file a previous year tax return yourself?
Use an Online Tax Service
One of the latest trends is to make your tax return by using services such as Tax cut or Turbo Tax directly on their websites. But also better to make your previous year tax returns, using online tax preparation sites. Just a few tax vendors study in filing old tax returns online.
Don't confuse the terms e-filing and online filing. E-filing is the IRS system to control your taxes electronically. The online filing allows you to make your tax with a website from an IRS approved vendor. In addition, online filing makes use of the IRS e-filing system to submit your tax return to the IRS. But e-filing is only available for the current year's tax returns – it is not available for previous year tax returns.
The use of online tax filing service is the stress-free and cost-effective method to make your previous year tax returns. There is no software to install so anyone with limited computer knowledge can do it.
Use Old Tax Software
Maybe the cheapest option of everything is to use old tax software. You can use older titles of recent years to prepare your tax return. So you can say that you find TurboTax 2002 or TurboTax 2003 or even TurboTax 2007, you can load it on your computer and continue through the steps to make your tax return. The most taxable software has asked for inquiries – just like a tax professional would ask. This makes it simple.
If you go through the steps, you can print out the tax return on the tax forms that are the actual same format as the tax return from the previous year. That is just the beauty of this. You do not have to walk around trying to find tax forms from previous years – the shapes are built in the tax software. You can always use old tax software to make your previous year's tax return can save you a ton of money in tax provision costs if you are practically self-confident in your capabilities to use a computer. Visit this site for more information : http://www.taxreturn247.com.au


text:
Can't you see? Or it's just my problem?
I don't think so. I'll tell you more – many people feeling fucky nowdays. Today they're webmasters, but times when guy behind a browser will feel himself fucky – it's a not-so-far-away future.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


text:
Anne Morel
Anne Morel always loved craft from an early age. She learned how to sew with her mum, how to embroider with her grandma and learned to crochet about 10 years ago. Anne came to formal art later in life.
Anne joined "Thou Art Mum", two years ago and met some amazing artists. Being a part of this group allowed her to constantly push her boundaries and learn new techniques with fabric, especially felt.
Anne loves the unlimited potential of felt as a medium. Felt continues to inspire her with its duality, both its simplicity and its complexity. For Anne, felt is creative, vibrant, fun and challenging. Personally, the most important aspect in the development of Anne's art is the creative process and this is always reflected in the finished product.
Anne was born in New Caledonia and colour was and still is a big part of her life.
Inspiration comes from the things around her and foremost from deep within herself. Anne likes to photograph nature and sometimes work from these images when she is creating a piece. She finds that she is drawn to colour, shape, form and texture.
Anne likes to work with a simple or general idea in mind rather than making detailed plans or drawings because the work almost seems to have a life of its own, changing and growing until it is finished. She embraces the creative process, letting the felt 'speak' to her, telling her how it wants to fold or flow. The most characteristic quality of Anne's art is the preoccupation with light and shadow that leads to a special 3D effect.
In 2009, Anne opened an online shop, Anou Design, where she sells original artworks for children.
Anne is currently studying an International Diploma of Crochet.
To view Anne's full portfolio or connect with her, please visit the below links :


text:
On March 20th, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) reported that this is the "largest ever" phone fraud scam targeting taxpayers. The scammers have collected over $1 million from the thousands of victims.
The scam works like this. Callers claim to be from the IRS agents and indicate that you owe taxes and you must pay the taxes using a pre-paid debit card or by wire transfer. If you don't pay, the scammers threaten you with arrest, deportation, or loss of your driver's license.
If you get a call like this, hang up. The IRS typically contacts people by mail first not by phone. The IRS won't ask for payment by pre-paid debit card or wire transfer. Nor will the IRS ask for a credit card number over the phone.
For More Information
TIGTA Warns of "Largest Ever" Phone Fraud Scam Targeting Taxpayers
IRS Releases the "Dirty Dozen" Tax Scams for 2014


text:
Personal Injury Attorney in Wood River, IL. Personal injury and wrongful death claims occur when an accident victim suffers bodily harm resulting from the negligent actions of an individual, organization, or corporation. When the personal injury lawyers at Burger Law accepts representation of a case, there are several factors taken into account to determine fair and just compensation. Our Wood River injury lawyers will review medical bills, lost wages, the cost of ongoing treatment, and pain and suffering. By utilizing this tangible evidence, Burger Law negotiates with insurance companies and claims adjusters to attain a settlement that will cover all expenses incurred. Each of our clients has peace of mind that we are handling their cases to the best of our abilities.
Talk to a Wood River Personal Injury Lawyer
With decades of experience and a passion for helping accident victims, Burger Law offers clients with personalized service that fits their unique case. Whether you or a loved one has been injured by medical malpractice, a motorcycle crash, a slip and fall, or any other type of personal injury claim, you can trust the professionals at Burger Law to fight for your legal rights. If you would like to speak with our Wood River personal injury attorneys or to schedule your risk-free case evaluation, call Burger Law today at (618) 272-2222 or fill out our online contact form today!
Personal Injury Practice Areas
Are you in need of a personal injury lawyer, but not located in Wood River, IL? Burger Law also serves:
Case Results
Medical Malpractice Case Settles for Over $1 MillionGary Burger settled a medical malpractice case for over $1 million. Our client, Kelly Sinn, was diagnosed with, but not properly treated for, a brain aneurysm. Kelly went to a Southern Illinois emergency room and the ER doctor diagnosed a recent brain aneurysm Kelly had as a "thunderclap" headache or the worst headache of your […]Continue Reading
Gary Burger Recently Settles Cases for Over One Million DollarsThe majority of all lawsuits filed do not go to trial–they settle. Some settle early in the litigation process, others settle the day before or the day of trial. Recently, St. Louis personal injury attorney Gary Burger has settled personal injury cases adding up to over a million dollars. These range from medical malpractice and […]Continue Reading
$1 Million Dollar Settlement to Family of Man with Sepsis InfectionIt is estimated that between 28 and 50 % of the 1 million people who contract sepsis each year die. Many times the sepsis has gone undiagnosed for too long, and then not treated in a rapid manner with antibiotics to which the infection is sensitive. This is a very unfortunate situation which could have […]Continue Reading
Class Action $600,000 settlement against the state of IllinoisContraceptive class action lawsuit in the state of Illinois, Six Hundred Thousand $600,000 fund to pay women employees wrongfully denied coverage for contraceptive prescriptions. Until July 1, 2004, the State of Illinois's Quality Care Health Plan, and some other State-sponsored health plans, did not provide coverage for prescription contraceptives. This lawsuit is about whether the […]Continue Reading
$305,000 Settlement in Southern Illinois Truck Accident CaseI am thrilled to have recently settled a truck/auto collision case in Southern Illinois. My three clients were husband and wife and grandmother in a car that was hit by a tractor trailer truck. They were traveling from a family dinner and proceeding northbound on Route 3 in Waterloo, Illinois. As they approached an intersection, […]Continue Reading
Fighting a Unique(ly) Bad Insurance CompanyOn August 27, 2015, Gary Burger tried an uninsured motorist claim for Christopher Smith and his daughter. We won the case, received the decision last week, and Unique Insurance was ordered to pay a total of $49,930.40 plus costs. There has been no payment to date and we are pursuing a bad faith claim in Illinois under 215 ILCS […]Continue Reading


text:
Lisa Middleton – Advanced Sports Dietitian, Melbourne United Basketball Club
Nutrition for Basketball Performance
Lisa Middleton – Advanced Sports Dietitian, Melbourne United Basketball Club
For professional athletes there are many factors that contribute to elite performance. Nutrition has become increasingly recognised as one of those factors, and the majority of professional sporting teams these days utilise the services of an accredited sports dietitian. Here we provide a snapshot into the role of nutrition for basketball, and the range of performance concepts that are also relevant to other sports and personal fitness, training and performance goals. You don't have to be an elite athlete to eat a high performance diet!
First let's consider the physiological requirements of basketball, as this provides the base upon which we plan nutrition recommendations. Basketball is a game of stop and start, with 10-12 minute quarters that involve numerous stoppages throughout the game. At the professional level, games may take two hours or more to complete, but athletes will not be active for all of this time. Basketball is fast-paced and involves repeated sprints and anaerobic efforts with varying periods of recovery. Players utilise both aerobic and anaerobic energy systems, and also rely on concentration, focus and technical skills for successful performance.
How is nutrition important?
The physical demands of basketball require adequate energy to be consumed, including appropriate carbohydrate for fuel, protein for recovery and adaptation, fats, vitamins, minerals and antioxidants. The energy needs of basketball players are often high, due to the large body size of many individuals, high muscle mass and high metabolic rate. Added to that are training needs and requirements for muscle growth – it's no wonder the hotels sometimes underestimate food volumes and run short when catering for basketball teams!
A dietitian's role with a sporting club involves working with individual players to determine their specific nutrient requirements which may vary quite a lot with training needs, body composition goals, health, genetics and growth. Some athletes follow specific nutrition plans, while others prefer more general advice to help them make food choices that will help them to perform at their best.
Body composition
If you think about the physical characteristics of a basketball player you often think tall! At a professional level even the smaller players are still usually 6ft or above, but there is still a wide range of different body types. Speed, agility and strength are key goals, along with the ability to sustain performance, which relates back to body fat levels and weight also. Part of my role working with professional teams is to measure and monitor body composition changes and work with other High Performance staff to ensure consistency with fitness goals, body composition goals and nutrition to support desired outcomes.
Hydration is important for energy levels, concentration and co-ordination. The aim is to start training and games well hydrated and replace fluids to prevent excessive losses and dehydration. A useful way to estimate fluid losses is to measure weight before and after a game or training session. This allows players to understand more about their individual sweat losses (some players lose a lot) and how much to drink during and after training and games in preparation for the next basketball session.
During training and games
Players will often eat a meal around 3 to 4 hours prior to training or games to top up fuel stores and prevent hunger. Professional basketball teams have a range of different game times, with many falling right on dinner time. This can create some challenges in planning pre-game intake, but it's a matter of trialling different strategies and working out the best regime for each player. Another snack 1-2 hours prior to the game can be useful and at Melbourne United we always have some light snacks in the changerooms for when players arrive, along with plenty of fluid. If training is an early morning start, it's hard to eat 3 hours prior, so a lighter breakfast may be preferred, with a high priority then placed on the post-training meal and intake during if required.
With the high intensity and long duration, players with high minutes on court may benefit from some carbohydrate during the game, however a greater focus is often on hydration. Part of my role at the club is to monitor hydration levels, fluid losses and intakes on game day to help players develop individual hydration plans.
Recovery is all about replenishing the body to return to its previous state in preparation for the next training session or game. This involves re-fueling, repairing muscle damage and rehydrating. Recovery meals and snacks should contain carbohydrate (fuel), some protein (for muscle repair and development) and plenty of fluids and electrolytes to replace those lost in sweat. Recovery nutrition extends well beyond the initial hour or so post-game, and recovery practices become particularly important for basketball when the next game can often be in less than two days.
Practical Sports Nutrition
It's great to know the theory, but the practical side of preparing high performance meals is the really important part. Young athletes who have moved out of home may not have done much cooking before, so learning the basics in the kitchen is super important. Part of the sports dietitian's role is to assess shopping and cooking skills and run practical sessions to help athletes plan and prepare sports performance meals.
Special offer for readers – if you would like to receive free nutrition updates, tips and recipes, please leave your details on my website Thoughts page, where you will also find a range of performance nutrition articles.
To find an Accredited Sports Dietitian in your local area, go to www.sportsdietitians.com.au.
Sage Institute of Fitness – it's more than a job, it's a rewarding career.
Vicki Richardson
Latest posts by Vicki Richardson (see all)
- Sage Institute of Fitness Career Partner Sam Merza talks about fitness, employment opportunities & career satisfaction. - January 3, 2017
- Lisa Middleton – Advanced Sports Dietitian, Melbourne United Basketball Club - December 22, 2016
- Butrus Haider: meet your new breed of personal trainer - December 19, 2016


text:
"For a long time, science was only for the smart, nerdy, no-personality guys," said Tonya Matthews, president and CEO of the Michigan Science Center in Detroit. "And that has never been true."
It's more imperative now than ever, however, to get everyone engaged in science, technology, engineering and math, given the complexity of problems the world faces today, she said.
"The more diverse the perspective, the more difficult the problems we can solve."
The theater is getting a complete makeover to enable it to offer more immersive programs at the center and live-stream content to classrooms and other locations.
The renovations are backed by a $1.44 million grant from Toyota Motor Corp.
They include new technologies to enable live-streaming, more advanced interactive seats, lighting, wall and ceiling treatments.
In addition to enhanced seating that will enable more agile, instantaneous movement and puffs of air (think science meets amusement park), upgrades will include a state-of-the-art HD projection system with 3D viewing capabilities; enhanced space and lighting and the creation of universally designed videos for 4D theaters.
Detroit-based construction management and architectural firm StudiozONE LLC is general contractor on the renovations.
With the technology upgrades, the science center will gain the ability to live stream into classrooms, community centers or homes possibly, across the state, and connect the theater to its traveling science program as it takes science lessons to locations around the state.
The enhanced technology will also enable connected learning — linking classroom learning to real-world experiences, such as an astronaut in space or a surgeon in an operating room.
"Imagine how many surgeons I could create if I could let sixth-graders watch a live surgery and talk to the surgeon while he was doing it," Matthews said.
That type of learning is taking place in other communities, she said. And it's time to bring it to Detroit and Michigan.
New and expanded programs helped the Michigan Science Center increase the number of people it reached last year by about 20 percent to 270,000 from 227,000 the year before.
The STEMinista Project launched last year to engage girls, the M-Step program that uses exhibits to reinforce topics students will see on the standardized test and the expansion of the center's traveling science program, which last year reached its 42nd county, all contributed to the growth, Matthews said.
Revenue gains in 2016 were consistent with science center's impact gains.
Last year, revenue increased $900,000 to $5.4 million on the strength of increases in admissions, memberships and corporate and individual contributions, Matthews said.
The DIA also sees countering an appearance of elitism as key for increasing outreach and attendance. In March, the then-new Director Salvador Salort-Pons told Crain's that the museum is making strides in its efforts to reach a more diverse audience.


text:
About Iziba
Iziba has been rescued when she was 4 months old. The Cape Cheetah Team found her in a flat in Cape Town. Unfortunately some people thought that it is great to have wild animal as pets. Especially in the middle East it was a huge trend. Last year, at least, 90 cheetahs have been transported to the middle East illegally. Most of them do not survive because they are such in bad conditions. If they do survive, the owner use them for photo shoots with their Ferrari's until they get bored and put his "wild pet" in a small cage. Luckily, those people realized that it was not the best idea when Iziba started to destroy their furniture, so they called the Cape Cheetah Team and they took her into their rehabilitation program.
Iziba is a small female cheetah, because the people that owned her did not know anything about cheetahs and therefore she was fed incorrectly, which is normal cat food. When she arrived at Cape Cheetah conservation, Iziba's diet completely changed but the first months are crucial for the cheetah's future development. Now Iziba is very happy and is a crazy cheetah. She has a very playful and naughty personality. She enjoys every second of her freedom. Maybe, soon, the Cape Cheetah team will be able to release her since they think she will do great out there, she just still needs to learn a couple of things and calm down a bit.
Now she has a lot of energy, and it is possible to see Iziba during a cheetah interaction.


text:
All Films.All Above Board.NOW INCLUDES TV SHOWS & TV LISTINGS
Second sequel to the 1977 comedy. Two entrepreneurs hire truck driver Cletus (Jerry Reed) to deliver a replica shark from Miami to a seafood restaurant in Texas. On the way, Cletus is mistaken by Sheriff Buford T. Justice (Jackie Gleason) for his old enemy The Bandit (Burt Reynolds), and a high-speed chase ensues as Buford and his son set out to apprehend him.


text:
Signup for our newsletter to get notified about sales, new products and coupon codes.
No products in the cart.
Showing all 10 results
Minimalist Necklaces
Long Silver Necklace with Turquoise Magnesite Pendant
Long Silver Vertical Mesh Bar Necklace
Long Silver Feather Necklace
Long Silver Y Necklace with Vertical Bar Pendant
Long Silver Satellite Chain Necklace
Silver Glass Opal Necklace
Silver Filigree Pendant and Satellite Chain Necklace
Silver Tree Branch Necklace
Silver Wire Flower Necklace
Silver Natural Quartz Crystal Necklace


text:
This is what real homemade pizza tastes like. It comes from Leonardo's, not Pizza Hut or Dominoes. Its the best!
Posted on Judysbook.com: 11/23/2009
Leo's has some of the best Pizza in CR! Their Taco pizza rocks... They have really good burgers too. It is nice to go to a locally owned restaurant an...
Posted on Judysbook.com: 8/19/2006


text:
TransAmerica (Includes Vexation expansion)
America in the 19th century: railroads are booming! Pioneer spirit and vision are everywhere. Everyone wants to be the first to build a railroad network across the country. Each player gets a set of five cities and must build a network (with the help of the other players) to connect all five cities. The first player to connect his five cities wins the round. Includes the "Vexation" expansion
Contents: Game Board, 85 Wooden rails, 35 City Cards, 6 Wooden Start markers, 6 Wooden Locomotive tokens, Starting Map, Rules.
more information at the Board Game Geek website
Customer Raves - Write your own Rave about this game!
(Click on a person's name or game group to see other raves by the same person or group.
Home |
Contact Us |
About Us


text:
Welcome ZCom users! This user has not added their bio yet...
Ebola, the African Union and Bioeconomic Warfare
US, NATO and the Destruction of Libya
Museveni and Reconstruction of Homophobic Colonial Legacy In Africa: Which Way Progressives?
NATO And Terror In Libya: The Peace Movement Must Oppose The Militarisation Of Africa
Contextualizing Obama's Visit to Africa
Bangladeshi Textile Factory Collapse
Trayvon Martin's Murder Sparks Remobilization
Dudley Thompson: A Fighter For Socialism And African Unity
Nanking and the Lessons of Genocide
Africa and Palestinian Statehood at the UN
Username or Email Address
Remember Me


text:
Our research shows that more than 60 percent of professionals use multiple devices in the office, 50 percent to 100 percent of the time, and nearly 60 percent send files back and forth between a mobile device and computer at least three times per week (with nearly 20 percent doing so more than 10 times a week).
According to research by Forrester, 74 percent of employees have two devices that they use for work, and 52 percent of users juggle three devices.1
It comes as no surprise that with more than half of professional workers juggling three devices that we often resort to emailing files to ourselves. Flirting between devices is made much simpler with the assistance of dedicated connectivity accessories such as USB docking stations or switchable keyboards.
[1] Source: http://blogs.forrester.com/frank_gillett/12-02-22-employees_use_multiple_gadgets_for_work_and_choose_much_of_the_tech_themselves
We use cookies to ensure you have the best possible experience on our website. By continuing to use this website we assume you are happy to accept these cookies.
Learn more about our cookie usage
how to manage your cookies