Hi Booboo, hope you are well.
First off, let me apologise for a few of my over the top personal comments made to you in a previous post.
Essentially you are asking me why I think that your statement ‘I have never lost an argument against an evolutionist’ is wrong.
Well it is pretty simple really, and Mister Pamboli has basically outlined the reasons, but allow me to elaborate.
To Brian Johnston:
First of all, there are many ways to define 'lost.'
In this context I define ‘lost’ as ‘to have been defeated.’
How exactly are you trying to suggest that i have lost such arguments.
This statement actually reveals that you know the context in which ‘lost’ is being used in my post!
I suggest that you have lost such arguments through:
A) A poor knowledge of science
B) A very poor understanding of logic
C) The inability to focus on a topic.
D) Your use of outdated material.
E) Your use of other people’s material that has been proven untrue countless times.
F) Your apparent inability, or refusal, to check out the validity of the arguments that you borrow before you post them.
G) Your sources are very limited, extremely biased, and your main source (Hovind) is not a qualified scientist, this leads me to conclude that you do not have a good overview of the subject. (I counted 4 different websites you refer to, and they are all creationist sites, there may have been 1 non creationist site, this is poor research)
H) Your inability to respond to the vast majority of the replies that you have had suggests that when you are looking like losing a debate you run away and ignore the rebuttal, hence keeping up the delusion of having ‘won’ the debate when in fact running away and not responding is taken as a sign that you have conceded the argument.
The rest of my post will prove to you that, given the above observations, that it is impossible for you to have won any debate against an evolutionist who has even a basic grasp of the subject.
First off, the chances of a single DNA molecule being brought together without the aid of a creator is about 10 to the 119000 power! Check out Dr. Comninellis' book for more on that, or visit this website:
Evolution-Facts | Fakta & Evolusi Ilmiahthey have a complete, free, online encyclopedia on evolution and creation.
Now this is a poor debating technique and should be avoided. You should really reference your source (which you have done), summarise what arguments they give that you agree with and say why they support your argument (which you haven’t done). To simply post a link and a name could be replied to with a counter link and name, then no ‘debating’ is taking place. Can I assume that in your debating ‘victories’ over evolutionist you ‘win’ your debate by saying to them ‘check out Dr. Dino he answers all your questions’, and as they have probably never heard of him, or fell about laughing, you take that as a victory?
Anyway, I have never been proven wrong about science within any vocal discussion about creation (at least not in front of me, or that i know of).
Ok, what does this mean, does it mean that you have won every ‘vocal’ debate but never won a written one? Who have you been debating with, anyone that would actually be worth mentioning and that would give you some respect?
For example, for all I know you could have debated one drunk guy in a pub, or a thousand university professors, since you do not say who you have defeated then this statement is groundless.
A good test of your knowledge and debating skills would be for you to set up a ‘head to head’ debate on a thread here, exclusive to you and one of the real scientists at this site and allow the members to decide who won the debate. Of course, once you have lost the debate, which you surely will, you could still maintain that you have never lost a ‘vocal’ debate’!
I would suggest a debate with Dr. Hovind (I understand many evolutionists hate him, but they have no reason to, and he is quite educated).
I have offered to debate Mr. Hovind over his poor knowledge of theology, over 30 of my students also e-mailed him and asked him to debate their teacher, this was a couple of years ago and all I received back was a standard e-mail about how busy he was and that he would get back to me. I even offered to donate the $200 that I would win to the charity of his choice.
How can you say that Hovind is quite educated, the guy has a PhD from a degree mill, you know these annoying emails you get offering you a degree for $50? Well Hovind has got one of them, it is an insult to people who have worked for their PhD to call Hovind a ‘Dr’.
He has a standing offer of 100 $ to anybody who will debate him publicly now. I met Dr. Hovind a couple weeks ago at a creation seminar in Oak Creek Wisconsin and I have actually become quite aware of his research.
Ok, what research would this be? What has Hovind actually contributed to the advancement of scientific knowledge? What area of academia is his PhD qualification in?
This is another reason why I think you have lost many debates, your main ‘expert’ is not a qualified scientist, he has done zero scientific research, he continues to use arguments that have been proven wrong to him and this basically makes him a liar. Here is an example of how dense Hovind is, and what a great scientists he is, He claims that Adam may have been black because he was made from dirt! Very scientific!
some of it may be speculated on but you should not point "you lost the debate" toward anybody UNLESS you have sufficient evidence to prove that a creationist is lying.
You do not have to be lying, just incapable of knowing, or acknowledging that you have lost. Perhaps you do not know what a debate is, this is possible given your inability to respond to the questions that you have been asked on this site.
Study both sides of an argument, and make sure whose side you're on before claiming that somebody lost the argument.
I always study both sides of an argument, you would do well to follow some of your own advice.
Since you have posted no proof of any argument that you have held with an evolutionist, and, given the poor quality of your arguments, the only honest conclusion to make is that you have lost debates unless you debate a child under ten years of age. (even then it would be close)
Of course I really need to support my conclusions, so I had a little rummage about in your posting history, look at some of these:
The Grand Canyon is Younger than Geologists think. Post 8.
I apologize for some mistakes I may have come across and used it as evidence without going into greater detail in the field of geology, but I think that, before jumping to the conclusion that the canyon is "millions of years old" more research is to be done on both the creationists' and the evolutionists' sides.
This contradicts your statement ‘Study both sides of an argument’ you clearly admit here that this is not what you yourself do. If you haven’t fulfilled your own criteria here what makes us think that you have fulfilled it anywhere else?
A Review of Creationist Websites. Post 9.
Sir Louis Pasteur
Can you give details as to who ‘Sir Louis Pasteur’ is?
What is Your Best Argument Against a Worldwide Flood? Post 14
Again, is this both sides of the argument?
Creationists Cannot Define Kind Post 43
Interesting enough, there is a little disagreement between some of the creationists on the 'kind' debate.
There is certainly one major agrrement and that is that none of them can define ‘kind’.
i personally believe that there was more than one single cat on the ark (maybe two or three 'kinds' that have branched out between the larger and smaller species and subspecies).
Based on what? If there are two or three different ‘kinds’ are these then the same species or what? They have branched out into larger and smaller species and subspecies, isn’t this exactly what evolution claims?
Well, Dr. Kent Hovind (i know a lot of people disagree with him on some things but he is a very educated man) seems to put one single dog as the ancestor for all the dog species.
Hovind is not a very educated man, he is of very low intelligence and if you knew anything about science then you would realise that.
Look at this classic: ‘(hovind) put
one single dog as the ancestor for all the dog species’
One single dog, what did it mate with? Did you mean one single breed of dog? If it is one breed of dog how on earth did we get all the different breeds of dog from this one in 4400 years? While on the subject of dogs, maybe with your great scientific knowledge you could let me know if dogs are related to other canines, and if so, are they also ancestors of that one (breed?) dog?
Dr. Ken Ham has EACH species on the ark (maybe some species branched off, like between the white tiger of India and the Siberian orange tiger).
What is Sham’s, sorry Ham’s PhD area? What does he base this on?
Well, i would tend to say that maybe all the larger dogs (huskies, retrievers, labs, german sheppards...) probably have been cross-bred and varied from one or two ancestral 'kinds' as found on the ark.
Crossbred with what, you expert says there was only one dog (breed?) aboard the ark?
Is a husky a large dog when compared to a Great Dane? What is the criteria that distinguishes a 'large dog' from a 'small dog'? There are breeds of poodles that are larger than Huskies so size cannot be one of the criteria.
Then the smaller ones (terriers and poodles) adapted and bred from a different pair of dogs found on the ark
So you definitely disagree with Hovind here, what else could your ‘expert’ be wrong about?
but certainly the chua'a and the st. bernard are not of common descent, as indicated by evolution theory.
Can you demonstrate why these two ‘dogs’ are not of common descent, did any of your many defeated evolutionists not ask you to give evidence for this assertion?
I'm not saying that this theory is 100% provable, and I'm not saying that I AM right, but I think that this aspect should be looked into by some of the creationists out there.
There’s many things that the creationists should look into, one of these should be the history of the evolution of the Bible.
Thermodynamics and Entropy. Post 1
Admin even closed this because of your inability to answer the many other threads you opened at the same time. This supports my claim that you seem unable to focus on any topic.
So my addition to this debate is this: the universe itself is a closed system, and since the only energy in the universe is already inside it, then the origin of stars probably was of supernatural phenomena (i.e. God's creation).
What is this based on? ‘Probably was’, so equally it ‘probably’ wasn’t.
What leads you to this conclusion?
Also, the sun's energy is destructive unless you have something to harness and use the sun's energy. The sun is the reason you face dries up and turns red after long exposure;
I’d say that the sun’s energy is very constructive, we would have no life without it. I think you had best stay out of the sun for long periods, it does more than dry your skin out.
Universe is Young. Post 1
I pointed out the many absurdities in your post in message number 2 of that thread, you have addressed none of these rebuttals. (This supports my conclusion ‘H’) This post revealed how uneducated your are regarding science, philosophy and theology. I found the example you gave about the number of ‘dead stars’ particularly amusing, maybe you could address some of the points in that post? This is just another example of why I believe you have never debated an evolutionist, or even a semi-educated person. I honestly believe you are an evolutionist who is trying to make the creationist camp look even sillier than they are, I am not the only one that shares this view.
The other members who posted in this thread exposed your poor knowledge of science as well, what is your opinion regarding coragyps’ post that the crab nebula is itself a supernova remnant?
Potassium Argon Dating Doesn’t Work At All. Post 1
The KBS tuff (a lava flow) was K-ar dated as being around 212 million years old. But then they found a perfectly normal human skull underneath the KBS tuff (indicating that the tuff was much, much younger than recently thought). A "40-million-year-old" petrified tree was found with a "50-million-year-old" bee nest inside it!
Here's the kicker--geology professors wanted to test the age of a potassium-granite stone, but 80% of the potassium argon washed off the rock before their eyes. So, that they would have been WAY OFF if they thought they could K-ar date a rock that is missing 80% of the evidence!
Trust me, all the evidence that supports evolution and an old-earth are inconclusive.
Again you seem incapable of referencing a source, as John pointed out you could have cleared this up in 30 seconds in a web search.
Supports conclusions: A, D, E, F, G, H.
What’s the Creationist Thought on This? Post 7
Again this satisfies criteria A, D, E, F, G
Carbon Dating Doesn’t Work Beyond 4500 Years. Post 1
Alright, as a Creation Scientist, this is a rather complex explanation, so sorry if I lose some of you...
When solar radiation strikes the earth's atmospher, it converts the stable carbon-12 (found in CO2) into radioactive Carbon-14. Now, Carbon-14 accumulates on all living organisms (dont worry, it's not enough to harm you, and there's nothing you can do about it anyway). So, when an animal dies, the Carbon-14 loses two subatomic particles and is released back into the atmosphere as normal, regular Carbon-12. The half-life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years, which means that, every 5730 years, half the remaining C-14 in the animal body is left. So, every 5730 years the amount of C-14 reduces from 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8 etc. So, the scientists carbon-date a dead animal carcas by measuring how much C-14 is still in the animal and, therefore, how long it's been dead.
The problem is, the magnetic field is decaying around the earth. The earth is covered in a magnetic field, which is STEADILY losing its strength by 1/2 every 1400 years. There are no magnetic reversals--there are only areas of stronger and weaker magnetism. So, if there are no reversals, then we know that the magnetic field has been shrinking at a measurably-stable rate. So, by the half-life of the magnetic field, the magnetic field would have been 320% stronger around 4500 years ago. But the thing is, the magnetic field filters out a lot of radiation (radiation is needed to make C-14). So, if the magnetic field was 320% stronger 4500 years ago, then it would've reflected most of the radiation, and therefore there would have been less C-14 in the atmosphere in ancient times--thus the C-14 in the atmosphere was at an un-measurable increase. Therefore, we cannot accurately Carbon-date ANYTHING because that would be assuming that the magnetic field was ALWAYS at the same strength it is today. For an example of wacky carbon dating rates:
The vollosovich mammoth was carbon-dated at 29000 years old, and the the SAME mammoth was carbon-dated at 44000 years old! Living Seals were carbon-dated as having died 1400 years ago! The shell of a living clam was carbon-dated as having died thousands of years ago! Trust me, if somebody comes up to you and says, "carbon dating proves the earth is millions of years old" they DO NOT know what they're talking about.
As the magnetic field shrinks, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere increases, so C-14 dating doesnt work like scientists think...
This post was totally annihilated and demonstrated again your ignorance of science, why have you not responded to the replies you have had on this thread? You could at least be polite enough to acknowledge that you made some schoolboy errors in this post.
So Booboo, unless you can post some evidence of the debates you have had and the arguments that clinched your victories your claim has no substance. Also, given the observations A to H, it doesn’t ring true that you have never lost a debate against an evolutionist.
Of course I could be wrong and you may have only won that one debate with that drunk guy in the pub.
Best Wishes
Brian.
™ Version 4.2