Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

--Budikka! What an interesting and quite awkward surprise. I am familiar of your 'work' by your lengthy essay '300 creationist lies' which I attempted rebuttal way back when. Unfortunately your continuous extraneous jargon grew tedious in my mind and drifted from interest to a relatively profound aversion with its lack in substance despite its occasional factual representation. Your 'creationist banging' drowned your credibility to demission.
--I am, however, willing to pretend that this post never occurred, go back to zero, and see if we can produce something more intelligibly saturated rather than sophistry and waisting time responding to a garbage disposal.--As you have cited your article which I also cited above, it was never scientifically pleasing, Hovinds ridiculous scientific perversions are self-evident to the attentive eye. If you find that there is any relationship whatsoever with Hovinds imbecilic and his amazingly enormous lack in acumen for a professing 'doctorate', with more intelligent YECist reasoning, I don't know what to say except we need to start over.--If I am not mistaken, I do not think that a Christopher Bohar lurks in this forum. If you would like to generalize your YECist query I'd be happy to attempt a response in the future. 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.--Whether there will come beneficial products with your joining us(and I greatly agree with moose's post above), welcome non-the-less & we hope you stay a while even if Bohar doesn't participate here.-- [Edit] - 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.--[Edit #2] - Fred Williams does wonder these forums, in and out, though he still participates in some discussion of which I rarely engage in.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-05-2002][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-05-2002][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-05-2002][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-05-2002][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-05-2002]

"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!"
--If it interests you, this was my rebutal to the first few pages of your list. 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.Part A
Part B
Part C
Part D
Part E
Part F
Part G
Part H--Maybe you even received an E-mail close to a year ago pertaining to this rebuttal, or this may have been just one of those who have linked 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."
--I am not surprised, you can search this board for my thoughts on Hovind if you like. I don't care for Hovinds rediculous thoughts."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."
-Actually, if you would have been more detailed on less 'lies' it wouold have been more enjoyable to respond to at the time. Right now I would just spew out my thoughts on Hovind and his jargon and leave it at that, if required I would refute some of his material if I had the time and patience."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."
--My point was that I wasn't going to respond to a garbage disposal as was stated earlier. You have degraded yourself to refuting garbage as if people actually thought it wasn't already. Hovind was never in style."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"
--Actually this is an attack on Hovind, not Creationism., 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."
--Take your questions one at a time in their own thread for topical argument, this will be more appropriate for furthering of discussion. Those which apply directly to my previous post I will answer in another post."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!"
--He is, though as I said he comes in and out, ie, he is known for increasingly large absences at times."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...."
--I enjoy the topic of Flood mechanics, most assuredly when it is a geoscientific aquisition, create another thread for this and I may join you."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."
--This is but your first 2 posts in this forum, we have a long, long way to go before you can make accusations against me such as this."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."
--Your firing your torpedo's in the wrong direction, when you come more to be inquiring from my 'armory' we will find enjoyable discussion. In the meantime, calm down a bit."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."
--Again I am asking to discuss with the evo in you, not the atheist. Also, God is by definition supernatural, so your not asking for proof, and if you are this is no better than Hovind asking to 'prove' Evolution, its a game of semantics and does not revolve around scientific observation. If you'd like 'evidence' for God we possibly may be able to delve further into that.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-06-2002][This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-06-2002]

--Sorry for the delay, missed the post.
--Please Buddika! Why go through the trouble of that lenghty response?
--Emphasis on:"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.""Budikka - Creationism is easily identified by the fact that it doesn't evolve...."
--You would then be quite surprized to see how my mind has evolved since the time the article was written.--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).------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 10-30-2002]

"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."
--I have not fully followed the thread enough, though I don't think I have to to really tell you that you reallly should think about settling it down. If you want to start complaining about others, please deal with your own inconsistancies first.------------------

"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."
--Well then why are you deliberately setting me up by responding to my messages (which according to you are completely off topic) and then claim that I am the one straying the topic! Also, the style you have used when posting your 'challenges' is unreasonable, attacking with quantity. Why not start a topic with a 'single' challenge rather than even attempting to keep up with and chase down 20 completely different topics of study, each of which could go into so much depth it is unbearable to think about following more than 1. By the way, the quote was in complete relevance."If you do not want to get involved, then do not come bungling into a thread that you cannot handle. Period."
--It is completely unreasonable!"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."
--The first post was directed at Borger, but if you didn't want me to get involved then you should have told me in your first reply to me."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."
--This is why the quote is completely relevant, the article is utterly outdated!"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."
--YEC, now make the thread since you didn't like the first one I made for you specifically and we can tumble."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."
--Feel free to ignore this post then, well at least no need for response."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"."
--No, see above about the credibility of the 300 lies article rebutal. And no, I'm not going to 'post my ten best arguments' because I am not arguing against the ToE. I simply support my position as a YEC. I also don't play with your silly debate tactic for unreasonable quantity. You evidently have attempted to perfect this tactic, however."I will not do your work for you. You need to do the work. "
--If you've done no work, you must not have any questions then."I am not in the business of searching the Internet in the hope of finding some vaguery of yours that might be worth refuting."
--I don't have anything else on the internet, I in the most part just carry my discussions and perform my deductions in this forum."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."
--After my next post, you then can consider me as leaving the building.------------------

"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?"
--Your 'Inconsistencies' is your problem with carrying on a fluid discussion with anyone, please see Quetzals post for your 'inconsistencies'. As long your posts continue to contain this type of extraneous jargon you will not hold too much productive discussion. You have a bit of good information behind all of that in some of your posts, that covering doesn't make it sound any better so please get rid of it.Adminnemooseus:
--My post, yes, was not relevant as to addressing the content of Buddikas claims & assertions. I made the same attempt as Quetzal did which can basically be summed up as 'we like the discussions being held here, however please settle down on that extraneous rhetoric'. My posts do not need response here but shouldn't be ignored and considered by Buddika is my request.------------------

Everyone seems to be failing, try here:http://EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic -->EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic------------------

--Thanx for the hand Mammuthus. Buddika you just posted, you know you can read this. I'm sure your tired of saying everyone's failing, or are you?------------------

"Truecreation is not worth my time. "
--Oh Please buddika. Don't expect me to continue to plague this thread by responding to your horrible sophistry, inconsiderate, and prejudicial forthcoming attitude. And my arguments are, how did you say it, 'lame'? I don't know how you come to such a rediculous conclusion without preforming even the simplest analysis. You have yet to even engage in real discussion with me. I explained to you in that thread of yours why your debate was not reasonable basically rendering you as Hovinds evo twin. Do you have to play the same pethetic games Nos played while he participated here?--I know my 'challenge' was difficult, but really... Too specific for you? don't like to 'do the delve'?"If Truecreation cannot deal with the simple issues in this thread, of which he had his pick, then what is the point in wasting time in another thread where he will be equally unable to deal with the issues?"
--How would you know? Oh I forgot, you don't.[Edit] - Well when you feel your up for it, I'll be right there with you.[Edit - 2] - I know what it must be, you don't like geology do you. ------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-18-2002]

Calm yourself Buddika, your going to give yourself a headache before you give one to anyone else. If I must say I am not here strictly for 'debate' but discussion. I'm not here to knock down my opponents, I am here to work with them. So if you hold the former, then maybe its time you consider the latter? Your position is more than obvious. If I am not mistaken I have already explained why I didn't respond to your initial post and your list of 'challenges'. Mainly because they were references to Borger. Another is because I am not the biologist, but a geologist at heart, the bio stuff goes right over my head and is much less interesting to me. But I guess that since this is so, I am obviously an 'overinflated windbag' right? The depth of the delve is most likely not going to wait up for my intellect. Also, I am not going to argue with anyone particularly scriptural, or religious implications, it also is not of much interest to me. I left the thread because you obviously detested my 'intrusion' despite the fact that forums are utterly public, and would have liked to start over."You're so right. What was I thinking of? What arguments? You haven't made any."
--I think you've just found the point? Remember this segment: "You have yet to even engage in real discussion with me." I see said the blind man.
--In your saying, 'You have answered nothing, argued nothing, explained nothing' also supports this fact. So lets start something. There obviously is no reasonable objection to the thread I opened. You thought it sufficient to parrot your sources, don't you think there's something wrong with this?"You interloped, uninvited and largely off-topic. I threw it open to you and basically invited you to name your poison. I gave you multiple options, including the option of posting your best arguments. You chickened out, and then opened a separate thread desperately begging me to start it off for you. These are the facts."
--I don't and didn't 'chicken out'. And, 'name my poison'?, post my best arguments? I am not here to shove the ToE down the evo's throats, or even attempt to do so. I am here to discuss the data relevant to origins with an emphasis on geology and my interest in the flood thereof. The two threads I began are completely reasonable and there apparently should be no excuse to avoid them, except that you evidently have a lack in understanding geologic concepts so you must parrot others that you hope might save you."In short, your position is foundationless and your "arguments" non-existent."
--Don't give me this, this is completely false, in reiteration, you haven't even engaged in productive discussion with me. Most others in this forum do this regularly, why can't I find it peculiar that you are unable?"Once again (and do, please, try and grasp this concept): either deal with **the issues in this thread** or stay out of it."
--I have been out of it, I simply suggested that you try discussing something with me since everyone seems to be failing, does this not get a bit tedious? Or do you just love going 'creationist bashing' on your free time?
--You didn't need to respond to this message, if you didn't, I wouldn't need to stay."I note that you said some time ago that you were supposedly out of this thread, but you keep creeping back in. Obviously your promise to stay out of it was nothing but more creationist lying!"
--Oh my goodness, you need to settle down on your oh so rapid quibbling shortcomings. I didn't come in here to argue with these continuous ramblings."If you learned some grammar and spelling you might be in a position to try and make a case, but I am not holding my breath."
--Your still being an arrogant ignoramus. How can you tell me that my spelling and grammar is horrible and yet make them yourself? Do you think these subtly poor quibbles shine any more credibility on your prejudiced credulity engorged corpse?"His latest venture is to open his own thread and beg me to start it for him by proving a negative. If this is his idea of debate, then it makes as much sense as creationism - in other words, it makes no sense at all!"
--Read the thread please, others of seemingly much higher intellect than yourself agree that it is a much more productive way to go, but you seem to be more than comfortable in your bubble so you can stay there and have fun now. Every once in a while, though, I might get a chance to throw a couple of geology textbooks at your face. Unless you'd like to grab one shove it in mine Shouldn't this be easy? After all, I'm just a little 16 year old, and a young earther at that. Obviously I don't understand anything that includes the word 'science'... But wait a sec, you wouldn't know that.--By the way, those in the other topics waiting for my responses, I have been tediously busy, so I'll probably get to them over the weekend.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-21-2002]

"Once again Truecreation, who swore he would not post here again, posts here *again* and fails *yet again* to address even one topic in the *original message in this thread*!"
--Oh no! I've already explained that I admit to this, there are, however, reasons for that."For the congentially self-worshipping, this thread is not about Truecreation's apparent need for god-like recognition and adoration, it is about the remarks Christopher Bohar made to me, which I answered in a thread aimed, by its very title, at Christopher Bohar. Why is this so hard for creationists to grasp?"
--Did you even bother to read my post? Apparently not, you continue to ramble false accusations against me, which are rather on the ridiculous side."In view of the (lack of) argument presented here, it would seem that this thread is effectively done with, and the creationists lost."
--A ridiculous extream, if absolutely anything, it isn't that the 'creationists lost' but Chris Bohar. I've dealt with evo's as ignorant as yourself but just a bit more unintelligent, when they come in here and get smacked in the face. I don't shout that the evo's have lost."To address the topic of their choice, creationists need to open their own thread, and make their own case, whereupon others can come and argue that case in that thread. It is really quite simple, and it is embarrassing that creationists, who arrogantly, and without foundation, claim to have overthrown evolution, cannot seem to grasp a concept as basic as this."
--I've already done this repetitively! Though you seem to have no interest and tediously attempt to sound smart by telling me that I'm a pathetic creationist ignoramus without intelligence and playing the pre-teen game, 'I asked you first'. The thread is still open and I don't plan on closing it.. Also, I'm not here to overthrow evolution and never claimed it was so."By the way, it makes no sense at all to open your own thread and then beg others to start it off. "
--Others as well as myself have explained that it is very much the contrary, so this comment is meaningless."This, too, is an admission that you have no case to make."
--Your getting somewhere! I have not exclaimed that I have a case against evolution."Nor is it smart to dismisses supportive evidence submitted by the other side and then turn around and allow that their throwing in the occasional geology textbook is admissible."
--My discussions with others on topics in geology are flowing very nicely and others will begin and will flow fluidly as well. For you, however, this seems impossible."LoL! If that were truly the case, you would be writing science papers and publishing them in peer-reviewed journals instead of posting in this trivial medium."
--That's funny. I am not even out of high school yet, it would be arrogant to assume it be expected of me that I have publications in scientific literature. But I guess that I must then be a moron right? Oddly you put yourself as well as the rest of those who post here on that same moronic level, another ridiculous sophistry."So you came in to this thread for the sole purpose of explaining why you were not going to deal with the issues in this thread?"
--Initially I simply said hello, and gave you my thoughts on yourself from my experience in reading some of your stuff (should I even call it 'work'?). At the latter time of entering the thread I simply suggested that you address the threads I opened just for you. Since you kept iterating that creationists are all stupid and fail in every intellectual area, I thought we could get something going. You dismissed me as a retardation in overall human intellectual advancement and continued on your careless way."Clearly the truth would seem to disagree with you. I have repeatedly responded directly to you. I have repeatedly made challenges directly to you, including offering you the opportunity to state your case/make your best argument, which you have consistently failed to do."
--Don't expect me to ever do this. You havent read my posts."I have repeatedly requested directly of you that you either deal with the issues raised in this thread or stay out of it. Your transparent attempt to blame this all on Borger is nothing but a straw man."
--And I'd like to leave the thread. Unfortunatelly you continue to parrot drivel regarding my credibility and I don't think I'm going to leave your sophist rhetoric without response."Then stay out of the biology threads. Duh! It obviously has not occurred to you, but evolution is largely biology at heart."
--Shows how much you know. This is completely false."Creation is religion, period. You cannot separate the two, although creationists deceitfully and repeatedly try. This is why I raised the issue of proofs of Jesus' existence. My point (for those taunting windbags who missed it) was that creationists are trying to claim there is no support for a science that has far more support than does the foundation of their own religion."
--I don't think the existence of paleosols, evaporite deposition, or anything of that likeness has anything to do with the existence of Jesus or his deity. Similar as you have no intellectual incite in geology, I have little with scripture and does not interest me much seeing it is just a big battle of semantics."What's wrong with your thread is that you opened it by asking me to start it. If you want to debate a topic (or "discuss" if debate is too strong for you, then **you** **need** **to** **make** **an** **opening** **argument** by stating your case. If there is any way at all I can make this intellectually more clear, then do, please, let me know."
--Read the first post in the thread, I have stated my position, you have claimed in other threads that my position is faulty, I have asked you to support this by illustrating your objections. You attempted, but your sorry attempt was not effective."I am not your puppy, I am not going to be lead by the nose, I am not going to be the dog in your pony show. If you want to establish creation, then you need to establish creation, not invite those who support evolution to establish it for you by attempting to prove a negative."
--Wrong, this is what you should be doing! proving the negative. Why? Because you have asserted that it is negative. You have not supported this assertion."This, of course, brings us right back to the offer I made to you long ago: make your ten best (or even your one best) for creation and let's "discuss" those."
--If I might iterate what I said long ago when I created the thread, which everyone should and many have agreed on:

quote:

---

Evidence against a theory is much more effective at altering its merit than providing evidence for a theory...
--Even if I had posted 3 geologic examples for the flood, this does not say that the flood happened in any way. This is analogous to you trying to indicate the ToE as completely true on the sol basis of finding that phylogenetic construction indicates that a two species are related.

---

"Clearly it escaped your intellect, but the references I posted in the other thread were to support my argument that science has already made its case for evolution and that creationists need to do likewise for their own case, otherwise, creation loses and there is nothing to discuss. From all available evidence, you, apparently, are unable to make a case."
--No, actually your argument was as you said it was:

quote:

---

Until the creationists have made a serious scientific case for the Genesis flood, there is nothing to refute. The evidence developed since long before Darwin utterly refutes young-Earth creationism (YEC) and science has been unable to find any evidence supporting the Genesis global flood story.

---

And your references are likewise:

quote:

---

The global flood is also refuted by these other pages

---

--The only strawman here is your strawman of your own argument."[Rest of self-serving and irrelevant trivia snipped]"
--Actually, the majority of the text you decided was irrelevant, are the points which are the only ones which are, that is, they are the points I have needed to reiterate to you successively.--Close the thread when you want to, but mine will still be open.------------------

Buddika, I don't think I need to explain to everyone why you are a loon, it is quite evident. I've repeated why I'm not responding to your 'challenges' in the openning post of this thread. What I deem relevant now is your continuous ridiculous excuses not to join my geology threads. And if you don't want me to post here, don't ask me by replying to my messages."And yet this creation superhero cannot offer even a single argument - not a single one - to support his case and related to the opening topics **in this thread**. How pathetic."
--This isn't pathetic Buddika...I explained why I'm not going to in my last post, of course your 'point by point' refutations skipped right over that part as well as all other relevant segments as well."That's exactly what you are doing - trying to get me to play your game by your creationist rules, and I will not. "
--These aren't creationist rules, they are methods which have been agreed upon by many in this forum which are the most effective direction of discourse, you are the only one which seems to be whimpering over that point though."Too bad for you! Now either deal with the issues in this thread or get out of it and quit whining like a whipped puppy that you cannot have it all your own way. Please confine your whining to your own thread."
--Since you continue to maintain your pathetic assertions against me in your previous posts despite the fact that they are horribly flawed, I don't think that there will be benefit to continuing in response to your ramblings. But again, the direction of argument presented in my thread here is the most effective course of discussion:http://EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic -->EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic

quote:

---

--Wrong, this is what you should be doing! proving the negative. Why? Because you have asserted that it is negative. You have not supported this assertion.

---

--When you can do this you can begin by replying to post # 15 in the thread.[Edit] - For the next quibbling post of Buddika's spectators can refer to post #118 & #138 in this thread for my response, I don't expect it to contain anything new.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 11-23-2002]

"If they are flowing so nicely, would you like to address my calculations, presented through my error in two of them, as to the amount of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere by the deposition of all those carbonates in a single year? "
--Careful! Buddika might scream and wine about posting off topic. On a more serious note, yes your posts on carbonate deposition and diagenesis seems interesting and of course a point worth considering. I'll have to inquire on more of an elaboration for a point or two, I'll explain when I post.------------------

"Let's keep it in the "General Flood Topic" thread in Geology&Flood forum. That's where I intended it to be originally."
--Of course. ------------------