Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

Christopher Bohar is apparently evolved from a chicken. He sent an unsolicited and rather derogatory email basically insisting all scientists are idiots and challenging me to a debate on evolution, claiming he could do better than fred Williams (not much of a claim!), but when I responded, the email bounced back undelivered.If you are going to challenge me, fine, but at least have the courage to accept a response to your challenges!In case he lurks in this group, here is my response:
------------
Clearly you are as ill-informed about evolution as Williams and his creationist cronies. If he did so well in his debate, how come I left him with 30 unanswered questions at the end of it?Maybe you could answer me two of them:1. What is the scientific definition of "kind"?2. What is the scientific explanation for the mechanism which prevents one of these "kinds" from "varying" (talk about vague terms) into another "kind"?Without answers to these questions, creationism is dead. Period.How easy it is for creationists to spout blather and rhetoric, when they never have to do any actual science! How easy to tear down instead of building up! How misnamed they are when in actual fact, they create nothing but misinformation and lies! What a joke you all are!And now to correct you:

I have seen many pretences at rebuttal of the 300 list, but never seen an actual rebuttal of any of them, not even a brief selection. Hovind's (what shall I call it to avoid a "barnyard epithet"?) Gallus domesticus feces (GDF) attempt to refute them is as big a joke as he is, since all he does is refer the reader directly back to the source material from which the lies were taken in the first place, and from what I have seen, this material is essentially unchanged from when I first attacked it!Let me tell you about Hovind. I challenged him to an Internet debate and he refused. I offered to debate him live if he would refute the 300 lies, and he refused. I reduced the 300 lies to 20 simple questions and offered him a live debate if he would answer only ten of them. He refused. I finally reduced the questions to two, and offered a live debate if he would answer those. Three years later I am still waiting his answer.These half-truths, lies, braindead claims and downright misinformation, which I refer to as "lies" for short, are clearly listed and numbered in a simple, straightforward manner as I address each of them.I had to wade through online reams of (what can I call it to avoid a "barnyard epithet"?), male bos taurus feces (MBTF) to prepare the 300 lies from Hovind's original material, so the comprehensive lack of rebuttal from creationists in general and the present respondee in particular can only be described as an admission that the lies list holds. Excuses that it is "too long" to handle don't cut it. I didn't whine out that excuse when I took on Hovind's material in the first place and I will not accept it from any creationist.The 300 lies is trimmed considerably from its first draft, and if had had published a paper-thin list, then creationists would have avoided responding with the excuse that it lacks substance and is unsupported! In other words, there is no format it could be published in that could prevent creationists finding some excuse to avoid addressing it.The bottom line here is that it is not *I* who am making the case for evolution. Real scientists are, with real science papers published in real, professional, respected, peer-reviewed journals. Websites and message boards are trivial in comparison with those. It is these papers that creationists are *required* to refute, and as I have repeatedly pointed out, in 140+ years since Darwin's ground-breaking work, not a single such paper refuting evolution or making a positive case for creation has ever, to my knowledge, been published. This alone, even in the absence of any other material, is a massive, comprehensive, and deadly indictment of creationism.Throwing around cute buzzwords such as "continuous extraneous jargon" doesn't cut it, nor do vague allusions to lack of substance. These, once again, are simple excuses of the Fred Williams style, designed to avoid dealing with the issues by flapping arms and misdirection.How anyone can accuse 300 detailed, numbered listed attacks on creationism in what was originally over a megabyte of posted material as lacking substance is beyond me, but this is not the crucial point here. I'll tell you what is. The crucial point is that the present respondee thinks this excuse, even if it were valid, somehow obviates him/her from responding to all the other challenges that were in the material I posted that was directed at Bohar.Once again we see a creationist use transparent excuses to dance away from addressing hard issues. Here they are again, stripped down and adjusted for the present respondee:1. What is the *scientific* definition of "kind"?2. What is the *scientific* explanation for the mechanism which prevents one of these "kinds" from "varying" into another "kind"?3. [Omitted since it refers to the 300 lies.]4. Supply ten examples of scientifically supported evidence that "evolution is falling apart."5. List ten examples of transitional forms that you do not think are valid, the scientific evidence refuting them, and the peer-reviewed science journals in which the refutations appear.6. List the solid, scientific evidence that proves that Jesus Christ existed, and references for the evidence that you provide.7. Refute the claim that we are closer, genetically, to chimps, than Indian and African elephants are to each other, than two species of vireo bird (red and white) are to each other, than two species of camel are to each other.8. [Omitted since it refers to another vague, unsupported assertion by Bohar]Here are some additional ones relating directly to the present respondee:9. List 10 examples of "sophistry and waisting (sic) time responding to a garbage disposal." contained (I assume) in the 300 lies. If you make this claim I assume you can support it.10. List ten examples of "more intelligent YECist reasoning"Answer the first two, the last two, and any three of the other six. If these are still "too long to handle" then let's try this: List your ten best scientifically supported arguments for creation. Not negative arguments against evolution, but *scientifically supported positive arguments* for creation.The reason I posted the response to Bohar in this forum, which I have hitherto refrained from visiting, is that this is the forum that Fred Williams refers me to when he starts whining about posting material in his guest book. The present respondee's reply explains a lot.First Williams refers me here, then I learn that he "does wonder (sic) these forums, in and out, though he still participates in some discussion of which I rarely engage in." so apparently he is not commonly to be found here!Now I see it. Williams wants to be perfectly free to blabber all he can in response to a message in his guest book, but no one is allowed to respond there, so it's always his word and no opposition. This is why he insists on having the last word in his debates, and why he offers no such exchanges on his web site. He is too GDF to deal with the consequences, but can post all the MBTF he wants. This makes sense if you have a weak position and know it.I guess that explains why he didn't dare take me on in a second, much more tightly focused debate on the Genesis flood. He claimed he did not have time, but I see he found time recently to debate someone other than me. My guess is that he saw the writing on the wall when I touched on the flood in the debate and perhaps he thought the material was "too much to handle", just like the 300 lies....With regard to your: "Please make them reasonable given we all do have lives and would rather not like to write a novel every time a lengthy list of question comes about."I do not know what can be more reasonable that the eight questions I listed for Bohar. Even answering half of them would have shown that creationism has some substance, but once again I see that the creationist position is one of insisting that evolutionists play nice and ask nice easy questions before a creationist will deign to answer. How quaint! How convenient for the creationist cause.I'm sorry, but this is not kindergarten. This is the real world. The evolutionists did not start this whining, carping, sour grapes and sniping. The creationists did. If you do not like to be hit by ricochets from your own attacks, then do not fire the rusted, antiquated, mis-aligned weapons which are all you seem to have in your armory.I have been asking the first two questions in the above list for three years and have never yet got a compentent response. Fred Williams likes to pretend he answered those, but he has not, and I will deal with his nonsense and lies in a separate thread.In response to: "I'd also rather lock horns with the Evo in you rather than the Atheist in you. The latter usually involves an extensive battle with semantics and gets a bit tedious."Please do not confuse me with the news group poster who goes by "Tichy" and lives and breathes semantics. The exchange would be simple: list ten *scientific* proofs that God exists. If you can, I'll change my faith. Semantics do not enter into it. Creationists are the ones insisting that evolution has no proof, that its science books lie. Well let's apply those same criteria to creation.Budikka

If you think I am going to let a poor excuse for a refutation stand as a refutation and leave it uncommented, you know nothing about me. You were the one talking about debating, and here you are, already shying away from it.For all your bravado, you have not touched a single one of my challenges (I don't count this sham of a refutation of the 300 Lies) nor have you presented a shred of postive evidence either for creation or for the existence of Jesus Christ. I trust this means you have conceded this entire debate.In order to prevent any charges from you or others that I have shyed away from it, I shall look at some of your blunders. In doing so, I shall ignore your grammatical and spelling errors in my response as will I your persistent misuse of my screen name.Original comments form you begin with "TrueCreation":My responses are in between such prefaced and quoted segments. Here is the first of yours that I want to look at:
"TrueCreation" - yet another creationist who just doesn't get it: "I don't know where he thought up the idea where Evolutionists don't use cosmology to give evidence for the theory of evolution. "For the quintillionth time: Evolution is nothing more than a change in allele frequency in a population. The so-called "Big Bang" (it was neither big, nor was there a bang) is cosmology and the inception of life is abiogenesis. Evolutionists do not mix up these terms nor do they need to use either of these concepts to make a case for evolution.Creationists are forced to muddy the waters as much as they can to hide their shameful lack of an alternative and confuse people as much a possible about what is being said and by whom."TrueCreation" becomes a prophet: "No creationist disagrees with any observable science that anyone can or ever will see."How wonderful that you can foretell the future so accurately. The sad fact is that creationists disagree with any and every aspect of science that they feel personally threatened by regardless of how strong the evidence is for it. And I think I can safely predict that they always will be this way without any need for clairvoyant skills!"TrueCreation": "Uniformitarian Evolution or the thought that the evolution process has taken place over billions of years is a belief and therefore a religion."No it is not. There is evidence galore for this from a variety of sources. It was the creationists themselves who put science on the road to understanding evolution from their discoveries in geology and from observation of the fossil record showing gradual changes in floral and fauna over time, with relatively rapid speciation events in local environments, just as Darwin predicted.Since then, evidence has come in from comparative anatomy, genetics, microbiology, a continued excavation of fossils, and observations of speciation and evolution in the modern world. These observations have been published in the standard science journals. Creationists, on the other hand, have done nothing to support their case in this entire time period! Now which position is in trouble?There are 29 evidences for macro-evolution published here, for anyone who is truly interested in seeing the evidence rather than just blindly pontificating and willfully living in denial:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentCan you refute those?An ex-creationist turned theistic evolutionist, someone who managed this transition without having to give up God, has a web site full of refutations of creation here:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/"TrueCreation": "Maybe he has read much about Hitler but hasn't read his book 'Mein Kampf' (not sure how you spell it), I can remember that that is where the quote was taken from."I have, just this minute, searched my electornic copy of "Mein Kampf" for these phrases;
"long enough"
"loud enough"
"often enough"
"tell a lie"I could not find a single instance of any one of these phrases, except for one instance of "often enough" which was nothing to do with Hovind's claimed quote. In other words, Hovind was, as I suspected, lying! And so is "TrueCreation"!Since I am unable to find this, it is incumbent upon you, as it was upon Hovind, to actually post a reference to the source. If it was a book, I need the title and page number. Without such a reference, this remains a lie. But then creationists rarely reference anything (especially not Hovind), so why should you be any different?"TrueCreation": "I would like to point out that he just used cosmology as a reference to evidence of an old earth, when he has already attacked Hovind as using this and saying 'but creationists like to extend evolution into cosmology and other areas where it does not belong'"I am not using cosmology to support evolution, nor am I mixing up cosmology and evolution, which is what I accused creationists of. I am simply saying Hovind is clueless as to the age of the Earth. There is a difference which you seem incapable of grasping.This aspect of the debate has nothing to do with evolution, but with geology and cosmology, and Hovind knows nothing about any of these. He has offered no support whatsoever for his wild claims and neither have you. Science has been making its case in the standard science journals for scores of years, all of which has been unanswered by creationists."TrueCreation" lies some more: "All of the dating methods that he has listed is based very much on assumption that the earth is in fact billions of years old."The original assumption was that the earth was 6,000 or so years old. It was the overwhelming evidence in the Earth itself that refuted this - evidence which was originally discovered by creationists, evidence which they must accept comes directly from God (as opposed to Biblical "evidence" which can only come from man), evidence which forced them to concede, before Darwin's ideas ever rose to prominence, that the Earth is demonstrably older than the Bible writers ever imagined."TrueCreation": "Creationists very much so have a very good scientific framework for all of these factors fitting easily into a 6,000 year old earth in all these areas"Then why have they not published their refutations in the standard science journals? Why haven't you posted them here in response to my challenge? Until and unless you do, this is yet another lie.TrueCreation": "I don't recall hearing of Hovind using the Moondust argument "Hovind used the moon dust argument in Chapter 1 of his 1995 seminar material, which i downloaded from his web site several years ago just before I wrote the 300 lies. I believe this material is nothing more than what he claims is his "PhD" dissertation (desolation would be more accurate) and in it, he begins his argument with these words:"As the moon goes around the earth, it runs into the dust. Therefore, the moon is collecting dust on the surface, kind of like the way your windshield collects bugs certain times of the year. The dust on the moon is getting thicker, and thicker, and thicker"He may no longer use this material in his voice files, but he did use it then. However, depth of moondust - an argument creationists used until real scientists demonstrated how pathetic an argument it was - has nothing to do with it. It is radiometry which demonstrates the matching antiquity of Earth and Moon. Where is your refutation of this? Why have creationists not published their refutations in the standard science journals, if they have any?"TrueCreation": "Hovind was using this factual claim to make aware that matter cannot create itself,"What Hovind claimed had nothing whatsoever to do with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LoT), and he plainly lied about what that law says. This lie stands. Your so-called "refutation" fails, and I am still awaiting proof of your blind-faith assertion that "God created all of the matter in the universe.""TrueCreation": "But for Atheistic Evolutionists to say that there is no God and never was they have an enormous problem."What's the problem? What does atheism have to do with 2LoT? Once again the creationist muddies the waters, explains nothing, refutes nothing, and answers nothing."TrueCreation": "Hovind was using this factual claim to make aware that matter cannot create itself, thus there had to be a beginning to everything"So what was God's beginning? If everything had to have a beginning, then so, too, did God. If God does not need a begining, your "chain of logic" fails and the universe need not have a beginning either. But none of this has anything whatsoever to do with evolution. It is cosmology, and highly theoretical and speculative cosmology at that.TrueCreation blasphemously claims to know the mind of God: "God could have just said for all the bad people to just die, but he didn't do it that way so that it would leave evidence of his judgment."LoL! It is my understanding that the judgement has not come yet. In fact, it is actually some 2,000 years overdue. And where is your evidence that the walls of Jericho killed "thousands" when they fell? Last I read, Jericho was flat long before Joshua's time."TrueCreation": "you are seeing and will see as you read threw this article who actually is the one filled with ignorance and for the least 'brainwashed' with circular reasoning and assumptions that its almost sad."I eagerly await your evidence in support of this blather, so I can "read threw" it and discover why I am not as intelligent as you, who cannot spell, and not as intelligent as Hovind, who thinks light speeding from a moving vehicle's headlights goes faster than light from a stationary vehicle! I assume you have supportive evidence or you would not make such a brash claim, would you?"TrueCreation": "Hovind is quite experienced and does defend himself very well and proposes great arguments."Then why is he too GDG to debate little old me on the Internet?TrueCreation: "Its easy to publicly challenge a individual when the individual is unaware of the challenge or hasn't heard of the persons challenge."Hovind was kept fully informed of my material, in particular my debate challenges, which have been emailed directly to him on numerous occasions. I was in contact with him for some considerable time before I posted the 300 Lies and I sent every shred of it to him. He has answered none of it, so your claim above is based on nothing but the purest, blindest, ignorance."TrueCreation": "most all public schools are going to careless for the theory of creation"What theory? There is no theory of creation! If there is one, please post it. I would love to see it.TrueCreation: "He admits that science cannot know what happened for the so-called first second of the big bang"Here is what I actually said, and what you quoted immediately before you lied about what I said: "Cosmology can not (at least at this time) make any solid comment on what existed - if anything - before the so-called Big Bang."I await in breathless anticipation your explanation as to how "science cannot comment" means the same thing as "science cannot know".'TrueCreation": "The 'God did it' explanation is easy to use, though God didn't do that in many cases, he left evidence so that we might believe which Buddika is very ignorant of the evidence"Do you ever read what you write? Apart from contradicting yourself here (you say God didn't do it but left evidence that he did?!) you offer absolutely nothing to support this blind belief of yours.Clearly you have no conception whatsoever of what a refutation is. You are confusion opinion and blind faith with actual evidence.If you have evidence, then please cure my ignorance and post it here. I'd love to see it. Otherwise I have no option but to conclude that you are lying about having evidence, because once again, if creationists had the evidence they claim, they would have published it in standard science journals long ago and settled this argument, wouldn't they?"TrueCreation": "I have listened to Hovind's Seminars and I have to say that this is plainly a lie in attempt to discredit Kent Hovind. Readers will see very very much of this as out of Buddika's text, He makes up his own lies to make it to that 300 mark, Kent Hovind actually does say 'Inverse square law', not 'invert square law' as Buddika perceives."As I made crystal clear at the start of the entire series of the '300 Lies", another plain fact that "TrueCreation" failed to grasp, I did not "listen" to anything of Hovind's. I used his own printed text downloaded from a link that his own web site referenced.This is where the entire 300 Lies series is taken from, so there can be no question about what is printed. I don't doubt for a minute that Hovind has corrected in his later spoken material many of the obvious gaffes I pointed out in his 1995 seminar. However, his original material, did contain "invert square law". This material of his, I understand, is pretty much a direct crib from his purported dissertation for the PhD (that he effectively bought from some guy in a house that is called "Patriot University").Here is the "Patriot University" application for admission:
http://www.geocities.com/...Temple/9917/evolution/puapps.jpg
Here is a photogrpah of "Patriot University"!
http://www.geocities.com/...ple/9917/hovind/wild_hovind.html
There is a review of Hovind's PhD dissertation here:
Account SuspendedAnother "TrueCreation" Lie: "One of the accounts that I do see few evolutionists using is with the theory that in the big bang theory for the first second there were no laws because of all of the scientific problems with it. This is obviously a petty attempt to validate the theory of the Big Bang happening."Once again, evolutionists do not deal with the Big Bang. It is entirely irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution. Is your ill-informed "opinion" supposed to be some kind of rebuttal? What a joke!Now **Cosmologists** do make the point that the laws of physics, which are part and parcel of the fabric of space-time apparently came into being with the Big Bang. If there actually was quite literally *nothing* before the Big Bang, then what was there to prevent literally *anything* from happening? Answer: Quite Literally Nothing!Anyone who disagrees with the cosmological model is quite welcome to publish a paper in a standard science journal making their case against it. But since creationists never do publish such papers, this isn't going to happen, is it? Failing that, please post your evidence here that refutes the cosmologist's position and supports your statement just quoted. I don't mean your beliefs, which you are injecting everywhere and which refute nothing, but your scientific evidence supporting these beliefs.Since your response to the angular moment portion is as far from a refutation as you can get, let me restate the argument: Hovind lied when he "explained" what the law of conservation of angular moment was. He claimed that if the universe were spinning (something he offered no evidence for) at the moment of the big bang, then everything should be spinning the same way. This is nonsense. He seems to be saying that something which flies off of a spinning body ought to be itself spinning, when in fact it flies off in a straight line and may or may not have angular momentum of its own.None of this has anything whatsoever to do with the spin of planets in our solar system, which, if I recall, was the argument he was trying to make, since none of the planets existed at the Big Bang! Even if he were claiming that the embryonic sun was spinning and the planets should all spin the same way, he cannot argue this either, since too much has happened in the system for it to be that simple."TrueCreation"'s true ignorance:
Me: "Thirdly, in those first few moments there were no atoms! There were only subatomic particles, and every one in the entire universe was confined in such a small space that it could not help but smash into every other particle thereby imparting motion that would completely obliterate any momentum it may have had previously."True creation": "But I thought you said that we "Just Don't know!"? "No, that's not what I said, and your lying about what I said not only shows how poor a scholar you are, but how desperately ill-informed you are. What I *did* say (and I am quoting this back from earlier in your own present posting) was: "The science of this period, about one second after the Big Bang until the present, is quite well understood and makes sense...". This is precisely the opposite of saying "Just Don't Know".So even you should now be able to see that there is a difference between not knowing that first fraction of a second, and not knowing anything about anything. Actually, I believe we understand the events back as far as what is known as Planck time, which is well less than one second, so physicists do know and can reproduce (after a fashion) those events, supporting their case. In short, we do know enough to support what I subsequently said."TrueCreation": "Ofcourse you can't, but I'm sure that if this spinning object was spinning,"You're *sure if*! What a laugh. The purported "spin" is all Hovind's invention - and if anyone knows how to spin (yarns, lies, etc.) it is Hovind! But he has offered nothing to support his claim and neither have you in your so-called "refutation", and even if either of you had, my argument still stands, because you have not refuted it."TrueCreation"'s complete ignorance: "Because you just can't dismiss laws of science."With the argument you then go on to present, you just did!"TrueCreation": "And there was no space outside of this 'spinning object' so it would have freely moved with nothing in its way...so if the big bang did indeed happen then these pieces would have to have flown off into this empty space, or as Buddika would most likely say 'out of the edge of the universe'"If you don't get it, you don't get it! You don't understand the first thing about the Big Bang and your ignorance is blaringly loud here. The Big Bang, as I have mentioned earlier, created everything - including space. There quite simply was no "outside" for these pieces to fly off into, and even if there were, this still does not establish your claim that they were spinning! You are plainly, simply, gullibly, ignorantly as wrong as you can be."TrueCreation"'s complete lack of grasp of 2LoT:What Hovind said was: "The second law of thermodynamics says: everything tends toward disorder"This is not the 2LoT and it is dishonest to present it as thought it is. Hovind did not state the second law but a creationist version of it. Hovind's claim was grossly misleading, because even in a closed system, which is all the 2LoT refers to, local decreases in entropy can occur. This is why 2LoT cannot be used to argue against evolution, even if the Earth were a closed system, which it is not."TrueCreation" adds to the lie: "Hovind correctly presents the second law of thermodynamics that the universe in its whole tends toward disorder. "Even as you restate it, you are still not relating 2LoT correctly.TrueCreation: "there is nothing outside of this isolated system ie. the big bang's little spinning dot, and the Universe in its whole."Where is your evidence of this? Oh, that's right, you are a creationist. You "know", so evidence is irrelevant. And you still pretend this is supposed to be a refutation?!!!TrueCreation: "If the temperature is low enough, this entropy increase is greater than the loss of entropy in forming the crystal."But the crystal forms - order comes out of disorder. If it can happen here, where is your logic in pretending it cannot happen in a chemically reactive biological system? You have none but blind faith! If you did have evidence, creationists would have published a paper on this topic, refuting evolution in the process, in a standard science journal.TrueCreation" Lie: "Thus ordinary amino acids and nucleotides will not spontaneously form proteins and nucleic acids at any temperature."They're coming in on meteorites formed in almost absolute zero of space! Read chapter 2 of this article;
Icons of Evolution FAQs
so we know for a fact that they exist naturally. Now here is your evience that they will not spontaneously aggregate? BTW, if I understand it correctly, nucleic acids *are* amino acids!Since I have shown error after error, lie after lie, ignorance after ignorance and incompetence after incompetence in your arguments supporting Hovind's trash. I don't see any merit in pursuing this. Clearly, you are no better informed than Hovind and no better able to support your beliefs than he is. I am not going to waste time looking at the rest of your so-called refutation. You have refuted nothing. All you have done is professed your faith and your blind gullibility and your impotence. You have offered no evidence and really poor argument.Didn't I specifically warn you *not* to take up the 300 Lies challenge? Didn't I suggest you try something easier and give you a multiple-choice challenge?If you want a debate, take up just *one* of the challenges I set you. I have given you a plethora of options. It ought to be easy for you to find something you can argue for. BTW, I did not challenge you to prove God. I challenged you to prove that Jesus actually existed. So, post some scientific evidence that Jesus lived. If you, like Peter at the trial, are incapable of standing up for Jesus, and instead, as oyu seemt o be insisting, you want to debate evoltuion, then do as I asked: post your ten best postive evidences for creation, I challenge you. I dare you. I double-dare you! Otherwise get out of here and quite wasting my time.As for Hovind, he goes from lie to lie. He is on record as saying this:
"Long after I graduated, Patriot became independent of the church, moved their offices into a house and dropped the Ph.D. in their education program."So here he admits that Patriot is in a house. But in a very recent debate, he claimed this:
"Hovind later stated that the picture was in fact of the University parsonage, which shares the same address as the main building."
(http://www.indianastatesman.com/.../2002/09/25/3d91c201bd0f6)I see no main building behind the house in that picture!So quite clearly, the lies never stop because Hovind is utterly unaware of reality.Budikka - Creationism is easily identified by the fact that it doesn't evolve....

Here's an addendum on Hovind: even Answers in Genesis (a creationist web site which has a list of "arguments creationists should not use") are taking him to task at:
http://answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.aspBudikka

Warning: please read this whole post before you even try to respond, or you will be wasting your time."NDT was already overturned on this board with the 1G5 gene"NDT, whatever that is (neo-Darwinian theory?) - and assuming you refer to the Theory of Evolution - is not overturned by anything "on this board"!What takes place on this board, in creation web sites, and in debates is utterly trivial. All that matters is what is published in the science journals and what has the evidence to back it up. Science is not a democracy! It is a dictatorship and the published, logically and evidentially supported material is what dictates.What you need to do is to quote the standard, peer-reviewed professional science journals where this and the other items you mention (listed below) have been published, and what their conclusions were with regard to the Theory of Evolution, otherwise you have offered nothing but brash, adolescent assertion of the "did so!" variety, and faith-based opinion.Failing that, please illustrate for me how you believe IG5 overturns anything, including at least one reference to your source material."the incongruence of the IL-1beta and the lack of the duplication that should have reconsiled (sic) it, and thus another clearcut falsification of common descent."In which science journal was this published and what were the conclusions regarding the Theory of Evolution? Failing that information, please provide source material and explain why you believe this one tiny item alone falsifies common descent when a host of other material, from a variety of sciences, supports the theory."there are the redundant alpha actinin genes that overturn selection as a concept of being relevant in the preservation of (redundant) genetic information."In which science journal was this published and what were the conclusions regarding the Theory of Evolution? Failing that information, please provide source material and explain why redundant genes overturn selection, and what selection has to do with preservation of the specific so-called redundant genes that you mention."the recent discovery of organisms that are genetically completely identical without being a clone"In which science journal was this published and what were the conclusions regarding the Theory of Evolution? Failing that information, please provide source material and explain which genetically identical organisms these are, how you know they are not clones, and why this one item is a "final blow to evolution", which is based on the confluence of multidisciplinary science.Now when I refer to source material, I would like a URL (that a layman can access) to the original published paper, or an abstract thereof, or to an honest summary of the material, or failing that, you need to honestly detail what it is the paper stated. If your reference is not to a published paper, in a refereed professional science journal, it is irrelevant.You seem tragically ignorant of the fact that creationists *do accept evolution* - when it serves their purposes (i.e. in explaining how there can be so much variation within one "kind" - whatever that is).So all of these claimed victories of yours above are also defeats for creation, since if you are right (and from your tone, I sincerely doubt it), you have robbed creationists of any mechanism they had to arrive at today's diversity of life from the pitiful handful of organisms that were supposedly preserved on the ark. If it does not work for evolution, it does not work for creation either!You are mistaken if you think I am "selfconfident(sic)". My confidence is not in myself, but in the relevant sciences as an explanation for the diversity of life on this planet."I recommend you to read my thread on "molecular genetic evidence against random mutation"."I would have been delighted to - if only you had referenced it. Are you afraid I would take you up on your offer? But please, do not ask me to read your material if it is as badly unsupported, unargued, and unreferenced as what you have posted here."In summary, what we see in the genome is not in accord with the random principles of NDT and not even in accord with selection as a major force of evolution."You claim this, yet offer nothing to support it. Again, you need to explain what you mean by "NDT" and "random principles" and explain how it is that this is not in accord, even if selection *is* a major force of evolution.You also need to define evolution as you are using it, since creationists invent their own definition, and I need to know which particular slant you are putting on it for your purposes before I can even begin to properly address your claims, especially since I get the uncomfortable, if completely familiar feeling in reading your post, that you do not really grasp what evolution is all about.But wait, why should I address your claims at all, when you have addressed none of the challenges in the original posting that opened this thread?Doglas Theobald has published 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution at this location:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentI don't see why you seem so confident that a handful of all-too-brief and unreferenced allusions to genes can overthrow even Theobald's work, let alone 140 years of evolution publication in professional journals that has been completely unanswered by creationists.But the most telling weakness in your approach is in the fact that both you and Truecreation have carefully and silently tiptoed around the entire posting that opened this thread. Did you seriously think I was going to let you play the creation bait-and-switch game and get away with it?My challenge to Bohar was manifold. Not only do both he and TrueCreation seem unable to actually step up to the bat, neither do you. In fact, I am not sure if you understand where the bat is at this point.You seem to have forgotten (avoided?) the fact that first of all, I challenged Bohar to answer these two questions:1. What is the scientific definition of "kind"?2. What is the scientific explanation for the mechanism which prevents one of these "kinds" from "varying" (talk about vague terms) into another "kind"?As I specifically stated, "Without answers to these questions, creationism is dead. Period."For example, creationists surely must insist that all vireo birds are of the same kind, if all of Darwin's finches are, yet the genetic similarity between the red-eyed vireo and the white-eyed vireo is only 97.1% according to Roger Fouts, on page 55 of his book "Next of Kin", whereas the genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is commonly held to be around 98.4%.If we are genetically closer to chimpanzees than the vireos are to each other, then how can they be of the same "kind" and humans and chimpanzees not be?Creationists insist that there is a "dog kind" from which all modern dog species, from coyotes to wolves to family mutts, are derived, yet, according to this article:
http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Articles/familydog.html
the genetic difference between wolf and coyote is 6%! That is 4.4% chunk more than that between humans and chimpanzees. Is common descent somehow failing here? Does your IG5 explain this? Does your genetic redundancy explain this?Please answer those two questions before you ask me to talk about genetics.The 300 examples of creationist lies, male Bos taurus feces (MBTF), nonsense, stupidity and misinformation here:
http://www.geocities.com/.../Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html
remain unaddressed (assuming no one is willing to continue the pretence that TrueCreation addressed these).There were several other questions to which neither you nor Truecreation, nor Bohar have responded. Worse than this, despite my comments, you have offered not a single shred of *positive* evidence for creation!All of your arguments, as are all creation arguments of which I am aware, consist of nothing but what *you claim* is negative evidence for evolution. Even if you were right, and all of your claims were substantiated, you still have not made a case *for* creation. All you have done is made a case against evolution. You cannot establish creation by defeating evolution. You must make a postive, stand-alone case for creation, or creation, too, fails.So, here is the game so far: I opened against Bohar, who is apparently still in the changing room, with what appears now to have been a home run. Truecreation decided to switch-hit for him, but appears to have struck out, and now you are stepping up to the plate, asking if I would rather play cricket. Do you want me to go the extra mile that creationists always demand, and tip the playing field in your favor, too?All of the challenges I set for Bohar and the additional ones I added especially to make Truecreation feel welcome are now directed at you. Can you respond to any of them?Despite the fact that you entered this thread and addressed *none* of the opening arguments, you now want to start on genetics, and apparently cannot even open competently on that topic.I have addressed your claims solely so that you cannot claim that I have avoided them, but please, let's stick with the original contents of this thread. The field is wide open, since no one has tackled any of the challenges yet, so why not address those arguments first, give me some intelligent, supported answers and if you pass the test, I will continue to humor you on the genetic stuff. Deal?Until then, until *someone* addresses those challenges, there is nothing more to say, is there?Budikka

> Dear Buddikar,I have no idea who this "Budikkar" is. I guess you mean me. This really highlights the perfidiousness of your " Let's keep it scientifically," ungrammatical flatulence. And you have answered *not a single one* of my challenges, not even the ones requesting that you *reference and explain your own challenges* so that they might be responded to! Why am I not surprised by this? In short, *you lose*!!> Who on earth is Bohar?
This was adequately explained in previous posts to this thread. Please try to keep up.I said: "If you are going to challenge me, fine, but at least have the courage to accept a response to your challenges!", to which you replied, "I will." but clearly this is another creationist lie, since you have avoided all the original challenges like the plague.Now you want to debate something completely different from the initial, established purpose of this thread. Either admit you cannot handle these challenges, or respond to them. If you want to start some ridiculous penny-ante farce based around your opinions on your pseudo-genetics, then start your own thread, explain in detail what it is you think you have established, reference the peer-reviewed science journals where your work has been published, and good luck to you. Or, alternately, come clean now and admit that your claims are spurious at best, lies at worst, and quit wasting my time making excuses why you cannot answer *the original challenges* upon which this entire thread is based.>I am not interested in what a kind is.
Then you are in the wrong thread. Once again the *initial challenge which opened this thread* was those and other questions. If you cannot answer them, get out of this thread and open your own thread. Quit wasting my time, other people's time, the moderator's time and bandwidth.> I work with (non-)random mutations in a multipurpose genome,
What are your qualifications? What is your research resume? What publication history do you have in standard, professional, peer-reviewed science journals? If you have no such history, you have nothing to offer on this topic but your own personal opinion, and frankly I could not care less what your opinion is. Your opinion is not science. Not even close, although you seem to have thoroughly convinced yourself otherwise.> probably arisen by creaton interactions with matter in a morphogenetic field.
Probably arisen? By "creaton" (sic) reactions? Probably does not mean proven, it means that's your opinion. Once again, I am not interested in your opinion. Given the tone of your posting, I am forced to wonder if you are even scientifically literate, let alone conducting serious scientific research. Now please, answer the challenges, or start your own thread on your eminently self-absorbed topic and quit wasting people's time.> At least it explains ALL observations we see. Evolutionism cannot account for that.
And you published this research in which professional, peer-reviewed journal? Remember you are the one who specifically insisted at the start of your current "contribution": "Let’s keep it scientifically, and back up all claims with references.", but I am still waiting for you to cite *even one single reference* to any science publication or URL in support of your claims.>The scientific explanation why the one multipurpose genome
> cannot transform into another multipurpose genome is due to
> the ‘Borger Exclusion Principle’.I'll get back to you on that as soon as I have finished putting my socks back on after laughing them off. The only exclusion principle you have demonstrated is your blind expertise in completely excluding yourself from dealing with the reality of this particular thread. On that, I freely admit you are the expert.[meaningless, self-serving, pseudo-scientific drivel deleted]> I know a couple of questions for you:
I say, I don't care!

---

Answer the challenges in the original posting that began this thread.
Then I might consider answering your questions if you have any
intelligent ones to ask (and I am not holding my breath!). Until you
do this, there is nothing more to discuss! Until then, there is nothing
that you can say, ask, do, offer or think that is not a blanket
admission of defeat. Deal with it, because I will address no more of
your excuses until you deal with the issues that are at the root of this
thread and the specific questions and challenges that began it.
Is this clear enough even for you?

---

[Replaced long line of asterisks with horizontal rule. --Admin]1) provide me with a scientific explanation of the first gene, genetic programs that sustains the simplest form of self-propagating biochemical circuit (organism).Read "Vital Dust" by Nobel laureate Christian de Duve.All of your questions are answered by published science papers in standard, refereed, professional science journals, by standard science text books, and by popular scientific writings such as those by Dawkins, Eldredge, Ferris, Gould, Guth, Sagan, and others. When you have published your "research" in science publications, then you can use it. I notice that you have detailed none of this supposed research, nor referenced it, despite my specific requests and despite your now obviously vacuous claim: "Let’s keep it scientifically, and back up all claims with references.You say: "The issue is that although evolutionism tries to address the questions on origin, it actually doesn’t.That's because evolution does not deal with abiogenesis. Abiogenesis does. This thread is focused on evolution. Look it up in a dictionary.Your lie: "That is: no origin of genes, no origin of new traits, no origin of new organism." is refuted in science publications on paleontology, genetics, microbiology, etc., etc. Read up on the subject before you blindly pontificate on it. Speciation has been observed in modern times, the fossil record, despite its bias and spottiness adequately demonstrates evolution, as do modern comparative anatomy, genetics, and microbiology."However, there is not a single shred of compelling scientific evidence, only inference. Still, evolutionism is presented as scientific fact."There is no such thing as "evolutionism." Please, do this thread a favor and get a clue. Evolution *is* a fact. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation for this fact, and so far, it is unrivaled.You claim: "Besides, I am able to explain all biological observations without using evolution,'Once again, in which peer-reviewed, professional science-based journals have you published your research? Quote me the publications, the references (as you demand above), otherwise this is yet another meaningless, unsupported opinion.You claim: "I even presented evidence for that, but every atheistic evolutionist is in the denial mode. I don’t mind, as long as I am able to explain all phenomena you can’t."Once again, in which peer-reviewed, professional science-based journals have you published your research? Quote me the publications, the references (as you demand above), otherwise this is yet another meaningless, worthless, self-deluded, unsupported opinion. Also, support your claim that evolutionists are atheists.You claim: "I you (sic) have a careful look at the literature a lot of papers demonstrate data that are not in accord with evolution theory and, of course, not discussed."Then you should have a *real* easy time, once again, relating to me in which peer-reviewed, professional science-based journals it is that these purported "lots of papers" have been published or from which ones they were turned down and why. Quote me the publications, the references (as you demand above), otherwise this is yet another unsupported opinion.You lie: "I presented already several of them"
But you presented literally nothing - no details, no abstracts, no references, no explanation of why you believe the purported data supports your wild claims. I challenged you on this and you were not up to the challenge. Until you prove that you are, you lose.You claim: "And now we know a bit more about genomes, it suddenly turns out that your stories can easily be falsified at the genomic level.Then please do so with the peer-reviewed science-based journal references that demonstrate that our genomic knowledge falsifies the Theory of Evolution. Until and unless you do, once again, all we have is your boring bluster.Your claim: "So, indeed you and the other atheists provided the world with a lot of non-sense that culminates now in a nihilistic worldview."Please support this charge with referenced examples, otherwise it is nothing but sour grapes.You claim: "It will take a long time before it has been undone. Actually, I think it cannot be undone anymore, since there is not another possibility for science then being atheistic."So the Pope is an atheist? or have you forgotten that he issued an encyclical not long ago supporting evolution? Please illustrate, with evidence and references, the logic underlying your claim that not a single theist accepts the Theory of Evolution. Otherwise I can add this to my list of 300+ creationist lies.You rant: "I do not mind that you and your guys want to study biology and describe the data subject to evolutionism, but don’t propagate your stories as fact."Until and unless the creationist camp publishes *their first paper* in a science journal either making a positive case for creation, or falsifying evolution, this is just sour grapes, and you lose. Evolution *is* a proven fact.You blather: "Try to smash my view."Why do I need to? You have done this yourself, by your complete impotence. You can neither answer a single one of my questions/challenges, nor support your rambling pseudo-science drivel. Congratulations. You are even rivaling me in the harm you are doing to creation!You ramble: " Besides, it is a evolutionism versus creationism debate, and has nothing to do with persons. Try not to become personal in this discussion"After all your insulting blather, and lies that all evolutionists are atheists? Please, take your own advice or take a back seat.You quote me: "Once again, blather without any visible means of support. How easy it is for you creationists, never having to do anything but ramble, never having to provide citations or references. That's how Williams manages his meaningless web site full of lies and hypocrisy." and then have the gall to add: "More personal assaults. What’s wrong with you evo-guys? Can’t win the discussions anymore in the light of contemporary biology?"I am still waiting for you to bring any science at all to this discussion. I am not holding my breath since you can neither answer challenges, refute statements, nor support your wild claims. I have demonstrated that Fred Williams is at best, deceitful and dishonest, and at worst, a liar (see http://EvC Forum: Creationist Fred Williams' Web Site Lies -->EvC Forum: Creationist Fred Williams' Web Site Lies), and I have a host of material to add to what I have already posted. Last time I checked, not a single person had come to Williams aid in terms of attempting to seriously refute the charges. Since you have proven yourself incapable of refuting anything, the charges stand!You quote me: "He never answers challenges. If you study his responses carefully, you can clearly see that he pretends to answer them but goes off at a tangent." and then claim, "Sounds familiar to me in discussions with evolutionists. I mean fighting off straw men and introduction of red herrings.'Yet in this thread you have done nothing but wander off at multiple tangents, throw red herrings around like it's a food fight at a seafood restaurant, avoid challenges and questions and repeatedly try to change the subject. You are, yourself, a living example of the very claims I have made! Duhh!You ramble: "Let's be honest? What a laugh! Okay, I'll humor you. You made the statement above. Prove it. Give me your best examples."Once again, for the chronically learning impaired, this thread is based around *creationist inability to answer simple questions and challenges.* The charge was to answer some questions or offer your best, supported and referenced examples making a *positive case* for creation. You have offered nothing even remotely close to this. Once again, when you meet the basis of the purpose of this thread, then I will consider returning the favor. Until then, you have nothing to bargain with, because you have nothing.More evidence of your incompetence: "The issue should be that you and your evo-proponents should get up to date with your theory."You do not even know what the theory is, and your camp doesn't even have a theory to offer in return. And once again the issue in any thread on this board is the topic which opened the thread, not what you would rather it be when you realised that you cannot actually deal with what it is.[meaningless ramble snipped]You claim: "I posted several articles that conflict evolution theory. See my thread molecular genetic evidence against random mutation;"I specifically asked you for a reference to this thread and you have here again failed to provide one! Once more, your meaningless self-important drivel is entirely immaterial to the case for evolution *until and unless* you are publishing papers in peer-reviewed science journals either:
1. making a positive case for creation
or
2. refuting evolution.Since neither you nor any other creationist is in this league, and has not been so in scores upon scores of years, your empty bravado is rather sad.[More pseudo-scientific drivel deleted]You claim: "You believe that refutations of evolutionism are going to be published in peer reviewed pro-evolutionary journals? I will open a new thread this week on genetically identical organisms (not clones). The data are so extraordinary that they could have been published in Science or Nature, but have never appeared in a peer reviewed scientific Journal. Cover up?""Could have been published" is not equal to "have been published" and never will be. What this is, is more creationist sour grapes and cheap excuses for impotence. This is not a cover up, but a blatant admission by you that your so-called evidence is not only non-scientific opinion-hobbled balderdash, you haven't even the wherewithal to look for the science to support it.You blather: "This is the I only believe what I see argument. Well, Mr/Miss Buddikar,"and once again you cannot even get my handle right. This is what is called incompetence, and probably accounts for why you do not have any support for your claims. You continue: "ever seen all those millions of transition forms evolutionism promised us 150 years ago? So, apparently this is no argument, since you believe also in things that are not around.'Clearly you have studied nothing of evolution. You want transitionals? Here they are:
Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ[meaningless, unsupported, unexplained, pseudo-scientific blather on chimpanzees deleted]You lie with this claim: "You say: "Genetics have proven that we come from ONE PERSON, not an ape, not some slime puddle or the latest evolutionary crap to be thought up, but from a human. GET AROUND THAT ONE!"'But I never said this. It was Bohar who said this, Please try and get your facts straight.You blather: "Actually I really have my doubt about the valididty (sic) of mtDNA mapping"Who cares?Another of your lies: "You say: "I suggest not debating with me, my knowledge on both theories is greater than Fred's and I commend his work.""Again, this was not me, it was Bohar. Please learn how to attribute correctly.You claim; "I say: Creation has a theory now. It is called ‘(non-)random mutations in a multipurpose genome’"Then please do elucidate. I await your explication with breathless anticipation - **But first,** answer the questions and challenges or admit you cannot.[Meaningless debate "acceptance" deleted since this candidate demonstrably cannot even support his own blather let alone that of any other creationist]You rant: "In my opinion Fred has some good points."Who cares what you think?You trip yourself up within one sentence: "By the way, maybe you didn’t get it yet, but science is not explanatory, it merely describes HOW things work."Science is not explanatory, it merely describes how things work? What is that if not explanatory? Do you even know what you are saying? Do you even read it back? Because quite clearly you haven't read what I have said, let alone what professional evolutionists are saying, and you are so far from even pretending you can refute it that you will never get there, trust me.I said: "Remember that this is *after* you have proven you are qualified to take me on by meeting the challenges in this email. Just to refresh your memory (and so there can be no mistakes or denials about unmet challenges):" and you have the hypocrisy to bleat; "I am ready. Where do we start?".I told you when we start - when you have answered the questions and challenges in the original post in this thread, plus the one that sadly misnamed "Truecreation" cannot handle, plus the specific challenges I have made to you personally. Until you do those specific things, you have not even begun to take me on. Deal with it.You whine: " simply do not share their opinion. It is an outdated view. It is more likely that the differences between human and chimp are determined by the histon code. And it may be so that there will be huge differences with respect to the histon code between human and chimp'""Likely"? "May be"? How unsure you are of your own beliefs! When you have written a science paper on this and had it accepted for publication by a refereed science journal, then it might be worth a look. Until then it is meaningless drivel, and no more than your unsupported opinion.I say to you, **when are you going to deal with the challenges and unanswered questions **that** **this** **thread** **is** **all** ** about**? because it has been there now, unanswered, for the bigger part of two weeks, and until and unless you or some other creationist does respond competently, then this thread is dead, and I will listen to no more of your puerile trash or respond to it. Period.*Budikka[This message has been edited by Admin, 10-25-2002]

Once again Borger the Clueless tries to turn his impotency into something and accretes yet more failure. Since Borger is clearly and utterly unable to grasp even where he is at, let alone what is required of him, let me reiterate in simple words:The issue ***IN THIS THREAD** has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that Borger has tried to introduce into this thread to mask his comprehensive impotence when it comes to dealing with the ***ISSUES IN THIS THREAD***.Here are the creationist failures so far:1. Failure to scientifically define "kind".
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.2. Failure to scientifically explain the mechanism which prevents one of these "kinds" from "varying" into another "kind".
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.3. Failure to scientifically rebut 300 examples of creationist lies, MBTF, nonsense, stupidity and misinformation at:
http://www.geocities.com/.../Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.4. Failure to support (in any fashion) the common creationist claim thatported evidence that "evolution is falling apart."
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.5. Failure to rebut any examples of transitional forms that creationists try to claim are not transitional.
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.6. Failure to list the solid, scientific evidence that proves that Jesus Christ existed.
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.7. Failure to refute the evidence that we are closer, genetically, to chimps, than Indian and African elephants are to each other, than two species of vireo bird (red and white) are to each other, than two species of camel are to each other.
Failees: Fred Williams, Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.8. Failure to list some examples of "highly suspect bones and maybe a stray skull.
Failees: Christopher Bohar, Truecreation, Peter Borger.9. Failure to list 10 examples of "sophistry and waisting (sic) time responding to a garbage disposal."
Failees: Truecreation, Peter Borger.10. Failure to list ten examples of "more intelligent YECist reasoning"
Failees: Truecreation, Peter Borger.11. Failure to support the following with reference to peer-reviewed journal: "NDT was already overturned on this board with the 1G5 gene"
Failees: Peter Borger.12. Failure to support the following with reference to peer-reviewed journal: "the incongruence of the IL-1beta and the lack of the duplication that should have reconsiled (sic) it, and thus another clearcut falsification of common descent.
Failees: Peter Borger.12. Failure to support the following with reference to peer-reviewed journal: "there are the redundant alpha actinin genes that overturn selection as a concept of being relevant in the preservation of (redundant) genetic information."
Failees: Peter Borger.12. Failure to support the following with reference to peer-reviewed journal: "the recent discovery of organisms that are genetically completely identical without being a clone"
Failees: Peter Borger.13. Failure to even reference his own thread: "I recommend you to read my thread on "molecular genetic evidence against random mutation"."
Failees: Peter Borger.14. Failure to support the following with reference to peer-reviewed journal: "In summary, what we see in the genome is not in accord with the random principles of NDT and not even in accord with selection as a major force of evolution."
Failees: Peter Borger.15. Failure to support anything he has claimed despite repeated requests.
Failees: Peter Borger.16. Failure to support this promised reference: "According to Goodman chimps and human share 99% of DNA sequences, and even 99.3 % if you have a look at coding and regulatory sequences (I will look up the refernce for you)."
Failees: Peter Borger.17. Failure to support the following with reference to peer-reviewed journal: "Mutation in mtDNA is not at random
Failees: Peter Borger.18. Failure to support the following with reference even to his own thread: "(see my thread more non-random evolution),"
Failees: Peter Borger.19. Failure to acknowledge that he has repeatedly quoted me, quoting Bohar, and attributed the quote to me.
Failees: Peter Borger.Borger: "After counting the references to scientific peer reviewed journals in your excellent rebuttal I counted zero."The onus was not on me. I was not the one making the claims, I was rebutting claims by Bohar, in a thread that has nothing at all to do with you or your insane blather, until you came blundering in here "Like a Virgin".I repeatedly challenged you to support *your* wild assertions that you made in your very first posting *in this thread* and you have offered not a single reference to anything, as detailed above, not even to your own threads.Borger: "If you are under the impression that the talkorigins is a science site and that the stories told by Le Duve, Gould and Dawkins are scientific instead of being their personal worldviews, well I think I better leave you dreaming."if you could even get *De* Duve's name right I would be impressed. But once again, I was not the one ranting pseudo-scientific drivel. *You* were in your very first post in this thread.All I asked you to do was support those specific claims, and you have, right up to your last "contribution" failed 100% to support *anything* you have said; then you have the insane gall to claim that established, published scientists such as Gould have nothing to offer but personal world views? If this isn't a classic collector's edition example of creationist inverse attribution, I don't know what would be.Borger: "If you wanna join a discussion --I presume you weren't forced to register to this site-- better learn to listen first, then take a course how to debate and --last but not least-- you better get serious you naughty angry young man/woman"Another classic example of Peter Borger's grotesque incompetence. He reads nothing that is argued against him, makes no attempt whatsoever to address it or even put up the wimpiest of defenses, and makes arrogant, blind pontifications about what other people ought to be doing.*I* should listen? I was here in this thread first! Not only did Borger pay zero attention to what the topic here was, after he blabbered his pseudo-science and I read everything he wrote, and I challenged him on that, point-by-point, he compeletely ignored all of that, referenced not one of his delerious claims, and started a new blabber. And he thinks *I* don;t know how to debate?Once again, Borger, since you have serious attention deficit problems, it was *you* who joined *my* discussion in this thread, not the other way around. You were uninvited and wa-ay off topic. You offered nothing to support any of your bizarre, neutered, adolescent, trash despite specific, repeated requests to do so. You refuted nothing that had been posted, on topic, in this thread, not even with unreferenced argument. Is it possible for even the most educationally sub-normal human being to be more off-base and inappropriate and ineffective and to fail as comprehensively as you did in this thread?No!Let's look at the score:
Failure Score, this thread:
Fred Williams 7
Christopher Bohar 8
Truecreation 10
Peter Borger 19This proves, scientifically, that when it comes to debating you are a bigger failure than any other two people put together!Now I am going to come into your thread and deal there with the issues you inappropriately raised here. Get ready.Budikka

Borger: "Buddika says among other irrelevant stuff"You mean the "irrelevant stuff" about how you have addressed not a single challenge in this entire thread (19, was it, at last count)? How you have offered not a single reference in support of any scientific claim you have made despite repeated requests for such?I am glad to see you have finally offered a long-overdue de facto admission that you are utterly impotent to deal with any of the issues that gave rise to this thread in the first place, and that you should, therefore, have never set foot in here, but all this really does is desperately beg the question as to why you are so hell-bent on having your posterior paddled in a second thread after getting such a swollen and bloody nose in this one.Borger: "I am ready and I am waiting."Then continue to continue. Unlike you, my life exists off the 'Net, so I will get back to playing with you as soon as I have dealt with things that are actually important. Please, take my advice and do not will your self-destruction so avidly. Take time to stop and smell the evolving roses.Borger: "In the meantime you have found, read and rebutted all the references in my threads, I presume."That won't take any effort at all if your references are as comprehensively absent as they have been in this thread, but if there is one thing my experience here has shown, it is that I do not need to rebut your references, just deflate your gargantuan ego, mention your glaringly non-existent logic, and highlight all the challenges you have failed to meet.Borger: "So, let's get started. Let's find out whether you are up to date with contemporary biology. "I do not see how this has any import whatsoever, since your grasp of that topic is so transparently tenuous as to be laughable.What do I mean by laughable? Well, let's take this quote of yours from your recent response to Karl: "I do not object to evidence. I object to presenting extrapolations from minor observations --that can often have alternative explanations-- as fact."Since your entire armamentarium consists of doing precisely that, this would seem to present you with somewhat of a predicament, wouldn't it?I also have to congratulate you on winding up your comments in that same response with this classic definition of a crank pseudo-scientist: "However, to keep evolutionism alive it has been denied, called flukes, that I don't understand evolutionism and more irrelevant stuff. However, the more resistance the more convinced I get that I am on to something."What you have here, my poor, limp, Peter, is not science, but a religion!How else would you explain your self-reinforcing delusions and your persistent use of the meaningless word "evolutionism" when you have so oft been corrected?Budikka

My attitude?
Are you somehow trying to pretend that it was not you who invaded this thread with an attitude, uninvited, and proceded to make post after post, completely off-topic (and quite contrary to debate rules on this board), in which you utterly failed to respond to a single challenge that was addressed to you?Or are you denying that you have left 19 challenges unanswered?Or are you denying that totally avoiding all challenges addressed to you means that every single contribution you made to this thread was meaningless?That's three more questions I am waiting on you answering, so the tally is now 21 unanswered challenges.How ironic and hilarious that you post a "contribution" to this thread which is totally devoid of content and in which you accuse me of a meaningless contribution in my own thread!I don't know what happened to your brain, but there is no evidence whatsoever that I can detect, that it has been in active use in any of your postings to this thread.The only conclusion I can draw after perusing one of your own threads is that you are getting so badly thrashed in that one that you had to come into mine in a desperate attempt to get some relief. I am sorry I had to disappoint you, but you asked for it.Now let me make this as perfectly clear as I can so that even you cannot fail to grasp it:
EITHER ADDRESS THE ISSUES IN THIS THREAD OR QUIT POSTING YOUR MEANINGLESS DRIVEL TO IT.Budikka - Creationism adds nothing to any sphere of modern knowledge excepting that of acrobatics.

You requoted quote:
"Of course this was quite some time ago and my thoughts may have greatly been altered due to further research. [Edit] - As this is the case, I am not looking for, nor do I need a refutation of my refutation."
is irrelevant. The point is that I posted material addressed to Christopher Bohar. Not a single creationist has come into this thread and addressed *that* material. The rules for this board specifically make the point that posters should stay on topic. Neither you nor Borger seems to have any clue as to what that actually means.If you do not want to get involved, then do not come bungling into a thread that you cannot handle. Period. All you are doing is a Borger - borging into a thread, blabbering off-topic trash, with no support and no references, and effectively dealing with nothing in the original thread.You were the one who said you had started refuting the 300 Lies. I looked at one of these so-called refutations and found that it actually refuted nothing. I patiently explained the reason why I posted the response. I am sorry that you were not able to grasp that, but that's your problem, not mine.You invite:
"Take one of your arguments which you assume would be unexplainable given my POV as I have listed a few around the forum and we can delve into it as far as would be relevant (preferably, geoscience)."First of all, I have no idea what your POV is.Secondly, I have posted all I intend to post in this thread until and unless someone deals with the issues that I have specifically raised here in the early postings.If I recall, I specifically invited you personally to post your ten best arguments, and now here you are, once again, meandering off topic, blathering about vague material you may or may not have posted "somewhere on the Internet". I will not do your work for you. You need to do the work. I am not in the business of searching the Internet in the hope of finding some vaguery of yours that might be worth refuting.If you wish to pursue this thread, address the issues I have raised, or post your ten best arguments as I invited you to do long ago. Otherwise, stay out of this thread and quit wasting my time.Budikka

Borger Blather:
"First of all my compliments. Your attitude is improving. Not as rude as it was before. You are on the right track. Great."First of all let me refer you to Rule #1 in the Forum rules for this board:
"Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics."Once again you have comprehensively failed to deal with the issues. The problem is your attitude, not mine. Your comprehensive inability to grasp the remarks that are addressed to you, coupled with your boundless and foundless arrogance is the reason I am not willing to be your best buddy.You can call it attitude if you like, but you and you alone are responsible for how people relate to you. Deal with that. You are in no position whatsoever to police the behavior or attitude of others, trust me on this.I did not start out with any attitude towards you. My opinion of you as it stands was planted, fostered and nourished by your pathetic, irresponsible, incompetent, irremediable and useless presence in this thread, persistently off-topic, and totally failing to address a single challenge that was leveled at you.You were not invited into this thread. You came blundering in trying to paint it over completely with your garbled genetic trash (see below) that has, as far as I can see, been thoroughly routed in its own thread.I have told you all of this before, but for some unknown reason you are unable to absorb it. Again, this is your problem, not mine. I don't want to hear your MBTF about attitude, because it is nothing but a strawman to cover your total, comprehensive and demonstrated inability to actually address a single topic upon which this thread was founded.Can you not grasp this? Are you so educationally subnormal that when I post a simple sentence in block caps in this thread insisting that you either address this thread's topics or quit posting to this thread that you are fundamentally unable to grasp such a simple concept and go right ahead and post more blather? This was an instruction that even the most inept and poorly educated child could grasp and absorb, yet you flounder, completely mystified and thwarted by it.Look at this for a classic megalomaniacal comment:
"My brains are free from bias."This from someone who, without having posted a single paper in a peer-reviewed science journal, and whose entire presentation in a separate thread has been thoroughly called into question is blabbing all over this board that he has single-handedly destroyed evolution! What a farcical, mythical, wonderful, fairytale world you inhabit. No wonder you cannot interface with reality.Your next lie:
"I started addressing the issues in your thread but your response is far from inviting to continue."LIAR!Here is the entire text of your very first contribution to this thread:
"Since you are so selfconfident, I will challenge you on the falsification and complete overturn of evolution theory based on genetics. NDT was already overturned on this board with the 1G5 gene. It was alot of commotion, and still is. Apparently, you missed that. I recommend you to read my thread on "molecular genetic evidence against random mutation".
"Furthermore, there is the incongruence of the IL-1beta and the lack of the duplication that should have reconsiled it, and thus another clearcut falsification of common descent.
"Furthermore, there are the redundant alpha actinin genes that overturn selection as a concept of being relevant in the preservation of (redundant) genetic information.
"Furthermore, the recent discovery of organisms that are genetically completely identical without being a clone (I will expand on this in a new thread that I will start this week) is the final blow to evolutionism.
"In summary, what we see in the genome is not in accord with the random principles of NDT and not even in accord with selection as a major force of evolution.
"In my opinion, the hypothesis of evolutinism is and oldfashioned, outdated theory. So, there is a challenge.
"Where do you wanna start? Elephant and Giraffe remains in Australia? Let's find out whether you require the same arguments as creationists do.
"It is easy do defend a theory by showing only the data that are in accord with the theory. I will show you the data that are not in accord with the theory."Tell, please, tell me, anyone tell me, where in that entire block of text is EVEN ONE SINGLE ISSUE ADDRESSED that was raised in the first post in this thread?Please, correct me by referring me specifically to the numbered posting and the line number of every instance where you have actually addressed the issues that were raised in the post that opened this thread, or admit that your last sentence I quoted was another creationist lie.You blather: "It is not that hard to address them all."THEN ADDRESS THEM ALL - number them 1 through 21 as I have done, and address each challenge that I have directed at you. Address it thoroughly and competently. Or have the common decency to admit that you cannot do it, that you blundered in here mindlessly, trying to spread your unsupported genetic garbage where it isn't wanted and doesn't apply.You ramble: "Next mailing I will explain to you how a kind can be conceived, and I can give you a definition if you like? Just let me know."Please, please, please do define "kind" as used in the Bible book of Genesis flood story - define it scientifically, and properly reference your comments.[Snipped mindless rambling unsupported garbage]You claim: "But first, you have to show where the old theory is wrong. I did that."Not in this thread you didn't, so here is challenge #22 (to be addressed AFTER challenges 1-21): explain, in simple summary, exactly how it is that you have refuted the theory of evolution, providing thorough references to support your claims, because from what I have seen in skimming your other thread, you have done nothing of the sort, and the "evidence" you have presented has been thoroughly wiped out by the comments of others in that thread.Budikka

Not interested in debating? You are the one with over 20 unanswered challenges knocking on his door, not me. The ball is in your court, and here we have YET ANOTHER MESSAGE from you in which you FAIL, YET AGAIN, TO DEAL WITH A SINGLE ONE OF THE ISSUES IN THIS THREAD.It is perfectly clear to everyone except you that it is YOU who is thoroughly unable to debate.Once again you have clearly confirmed what an incompetent you are by running away from the issues. In your last message before that, you were offering to deal with the challenges. Now that I have called your bluff, you run away crying like a baby.Do you think I care a fig about you or about debating you? You are totally insignificant. Deal with it. You are a fraud and a waste of time. Deal with the issues, answer the challenges, quit stalling, or let it stand in the eyes of the world what a loser you are.Deal with it or I will call on the administrator to censor you for endlessly time-wasting on off-topic material in this thread.Budikka

This thread began as a challenge to Christopher Bohar (who has been consistently absent). Both you and Borger have jumped in here uninvited, talking trash and effectively addressing none of the material posted in the original message. I believe you also have a significant unanswered challenges stacked against you.Do you care to highlight what these supposed inconsistencies are, or is this yet another example of unsupported creationist lies and strawmen? Or are you going to be unique in having the honesty to admit that all you actually have is sour grapes because you could not rise to the challenges any more effectively or competently than Borger?Or do you think you are so god-like that the debate rules should be changed "just for you"? Deal with the original issues or deal yourself out.Budikka

Are you a moderator? If you are not, then I do not understand your interest in this.If you are, then how about moderating and getting the people posting in this thread to deal with the issues in this thread instead of allowing them to feel perfectly free to blabber all the nonsense they want about anything and everything *other* than the issues in this thread and deliver subtle insults to boot? Are insults somehow less insulting because they are subtly "racheted down"?If neither they nor anyone else is willing to take up these challenges (and it seems perfectly clear to me by now that they are not), then let's close this thread now, because no one is more tired than I am of trying to police it.Budikka

Quetzal, please do not worry about this. It is not my "plan" to ignore or break rules or to offend the average user of these boards, and I will accept constructive criticism.I admit to being blunt in this thread, but this is a result of my frustration with the creationists (specifically Christopher Bohar, Peter Borger and "Truecreation"). Bohar emailed me directly with an arrogant and insulting challenge to debate, but when I emailed a response to him, it could not find him! I posted a response in Fred Williams' guest book on his web site at http://www.evolutionfairtytale.com, since Bohar repeatedly referred to that site as though he and Williams were bosom buddies.Fred Williams' response to that was to "ban" me (big punishment!) from even *reading* his guest book, let alone posting anything in it (he even banned me from reading his "response to Budikka" on that same site!).We can clearly see what kind of site Williams is running. However, since Williams has on a couple of occasions referred me to the present boards for debates, I posted the Bohar challenge here as one last attempt to try and reach the guy. As you can see, he has never showed. Frankly, I am actually beginning to wonder if Fred Williams hasn't had some sort of hand in this whole affair! I certainly wouldn't put it past him.The latter two of the creationists listed above were the ones who did show up in this thread, and neither of them have effectively addressed the material I posted addressed to Bohar. Borger in particular came in here like a bull at a red rag, posting a mass of irrelevant material drafted in from some other thread he is running. I have since taken him up on these topics in that thread.What I have consistently (and unsuccessfully!) tried to do in this thread is focus Borger in particular on the material being addressed here. Since neither Borger nor Truecreation are evidentially able to respond to the material, I am about ready to request that this thread be archived, since it is going nowhere. I will leave it open a little longer just in case Borger actually does have anything to say on topic, but my patience with him here has worn very thin, and I do not expect him to live up to his claims. I am trying a different approach in his own thread.If it makes you feel better, I accept your apology, but it really isn't necessary.I share your attraction to what you describe as "the relatively high level of the average discussion and the relatively low level of flames.", but it is difficult to maintain that level when arrogant creationists talk down to evolutionists as though they are agents of Satan or congenitally stupid, and when creationists persistently duck challenges as Borger is doing here. And it is especially frustrating when they resurrect already refuted material or repeatedly try to get away with argument which is ill-formed or ill-informed.My question to you regarding whether you were a moderator was not intended to be accusatory, merely interogatory, because I got a nasty feeling creep over me when I thought you might be, a feeling related to creationist bias. Let me explain.I have been dealing with creationists for a long time, and a distinct MO of theirs is the "dumb insolence method". They love to employ this in live debate and I think it accounts for the relatively high level of misperception that they are successful in these debates.The dumb insolence method requires that they simultaneously throw out a plethora of misinformation while ignoring evolutionist challenges, or at best, only tangentially addressing these challenges. Fred Williams in particular is very skilled at the tangential response strategy, but I have addressed his problems in a separate thread.It is easy for creationists to ply their trade in live debate, but harder in "written" debate such as this. Unfortunately I let Fred Williams indulge himself too much in this approach in the debate I had with him on his web site.I do not intend to let any other creationist get away with this, which is why I keep slamming Borger back to the topic. Perhaps I am running near the limits on this, but all Borger has to do to return me to my aimiable self is deal with the issues. He has only himself to blame for my attitude towards him.What I was afraid of, if you were indeed a moderator censoring me, is that you were passively supporting the creationist hit-and-run strategy by censoring me for my frustrated rhetoric, whilst failing to address their (in my opinion) greater sin of continuously straying off topic (or in Borger's case, never actually being on topic to begin with!). I am relieved to know this is not the case!I take your point about insults, but I have to disagree. An insult is an insult, and it would be better to avoid them altogether, but after three or four years of creationist insults, passive, subtle, and flaming, not just at me, but at hard-working scientists in general my patience with them tends to be short, whether they are subtle or not, especially when they continue to seek to trash evolution, yet can never get their own house in order.Unlike the creationists, I never pretend to be perfect (or to have perfect knowledge)! I am a work in progress and the only way to improve is with practice. I hope this explains my position with somewhat more clarity and less rhetoric.Budikka