Outline: The current cosmological model (called Lambda-CDM) suggests that a Big Bang occured 13.7 billion years ago, followed immediately by a period of rapid expansion, called Inflation. This model is based on roughly 100 years of observation, and includes so-called ``dark matter'' and ``dark energy''.
Also, it seems that 250 years of empirical evidence supports the idea that species change slowly over time, and undergo an evolution to adapt to a changing environment, as outlined initially by Charles Darwin and developed further in the late nineteenth and twentieth century.
Nonetheless, there are those who would replace the current cosmology and evolution with their own constructions.
Resolved: That replacing established scientific theories with such ad hoc constructions is a gross violaiton of the basic tenets of the scientific method.
Participants: I challenge anyone to take the other side of this argument. While I am much more comfortable talking about the cosmology side of things, the argument is not specific to physics. This will be a debate more of values than of actual policy.
Rules: The debate will procede as follows. Each side will make one post outlining their position as it relates to the resolution. The Pro will make the first post. There will be a cross-examination post in which the Con can ask the Pro no more than ten specific questions regarding his argument.
The Con will make the second post, in which he presents his case. This wil be followed by a cros examination post, in which the Pro asks the Con no more than ten specific quesitons regarding his points.
There will be one final post by each of the sides, starting with the Pro. The Pro may take this opportunity to respond to specific points raised in Con's arguments, along with anything from the cross examination thread.
Likewise, the Con will have one final post.
Note that, all points of debate must be raised in the initial post, where both sides state their cases. No additional points can be made in the responses that weren't outlined in the initial posts.
Also, it seems that 250 years of empirical evidence supports the idea that species change slowly over time, and undergo an evolution to adapt to a changing environment, as outlined initially by Charles Darwin and developed further in the late nineteenth and twentieth century.
Nonetheless, there are those who would replace the current cosmology and evolution with their own constructions.
Resolved: That replacing established scientific theories with such ad hoc constructions is a gross violaiton of the basic tenets of the scientific method.
Participants: I challenge anyone to take the other side of this argument. While I am much more comfortable talking about the cosmology side of things, the argument is not specific to physics. This will be a debate more of values than of actual policy.
Rules: The debate will procede as follows. Each side will make one post outlining their position as it relates to the resolution. The Pro will make the first post. There will be a cross-examination post in which the Con can ask the Pro no more than ten specific questions regarding his argument.
The Con will make the second post, in which he presents his case. This wil be followed by a cros examination post, in which the Pro asks the Con no more than ten specific quesitons regarding his points.
There will be one final post by each of the sides, starting with the Pro. The Pro may take this opportunity to respond to specific points raised in Con's arguments, along with anything from the cross examination thread.
Likewise, the Con will have one final post.
Note that, all points of debate must be raised in the initial post, where both sides state their cases. No additional points can be made in the responses that weren't outlined in the initial posts.
That's why I didn't volunteer for the other side.
