I would take him up on it. I have challenged Allmendream to debate a number of scientists, and when it looks like it might happen he backs out every time. I doubt very much Soliton is a scientist seeing how he doesn’t even have the wherewithal to write his own stuff, and instead choses to borrow the work of others without attribution or even quotation marks. Allmendream, on the other hand, is a low-level scientist who likes to pick fights with novices, but when faced with the prospect of debating pedigreed scientists, he goes running for the hills faster than Richard Dawkins or PZ Meyers can renig on a movie release.
PS The offer still stands, Allmendream. You have agreed to two debates, both of which you backed out of. Peter Duesberg still stands ready to tear you limb from limb re: AIDS, and it shouldn’t be too much trouble to find a Creation or an ID scientist to expose the non-scientific/religious doctrines of the Temple of Darwin for all to see.
Sometimes I forget the quotes. This isn’t a peer review publication. I’d debate any of your dufuses on the merites of ID. It’s an automatic win. I would also take the time to put in all the quotation marks.
Nice to see you again GGG. We don't give pedigrees in Science. I am a section head for a major pharmaceutical company. Dawkins and Myers didn't renege (they couldn't) they just complained that the movie makers lied about the title and intent of the movie. I don't pick fights, I try to give the current understanding of the subject, as my posting history with you would indicate I am polite and helpful when I feel a poster is genuinely curious, and sarcastic and caustic when I feel I am dealing with a fool.
Well, unfortunately, I’m not the one who wrote the article, but I have my doubts that the author will be interested in, what I’m sure, she would consider a sophomoric debate about a subject that she has spent a large part of her professional life doing.
For my part, there is nothing to debate. Nothing can be called science about which every so-called science in the field has a different hypothesis, and which changes it’s direction as often as most of us change our underwear.
In fact, to debate an evolutionist grants them a kind of authenticity, implying there made up stories are really worth debating. They aren’t, so I doubt if there will be a debate.
Thanks for the good comment and confidence.
Hank