Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 191 (24241)
11-25-2002 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by peter borger
11-18-2002 9:52 PM


Once again Borger proves what an incompetent and impotent creationist he is. Instead of dealing with the issues which he has consistently and repeatedly failed to deal with he (typically for a creationist), ignores his shortcomings, and turns around and throws out another insult.
Is anyone able to glean from this why I detest creationists and will not cut them any slack? Does this help anyone at all to understand my attitude towards them? It's because for three years I have been dealing on an almost daily basis with the same impotence, incompetence and insults from assorted creationists that is so beautifully demonstrated in this one message from Borger.
I don't want to see another person in this thread attempt to lecture me about attitude when we see quite clearly here what a bunch of time-wasting lame-brains I have to deal with to do my part in keeping the world safe from tunnel-visioned fanatics who would try to brainwash my children with their pathetic mythology.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by peter borger, posted 11-18-2002 9:52 PM peter borger has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 167 of 191 (24335)
11-25-2002 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Budikka
11-25-2002 1:09 PM


Dear Buddika,
Buddika says:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excuse me but this is an English thread - foreign languages are irrelevant here.
Excuse me, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with contemporary biology, but with English.
I say:
1) I already noticed that you don't have a clue about contemporary biology.
2) If a reference is in German it isn't irrelevant. This one was relevant since it demonstrated that all stonecorals are one (or at most a few) kind(s).
Buddika says:
Excuse me but the only place I have ever seen the word "evolutionism" used is in blather written by creationists, who are the last people on the planet to have a clue about biology past or present, even if it were relevant to this particular topic.
I say:
I already explained to you how linguistics work.
Buddika says:
Now do you want to quote me valid (i.e. non-creationist)references were you have seen "evolutionism" used or where it is defined?
I say:
Apparently you don't know what these words mean.
Buddika says:
BTW, the topic here is actually evolution (that is the change in allele frequency in a population and more specifically, the topics raised in the very first message in this thread), not "evolutionism" even if there is such a word, so please, let's get your topics straight, shall we?
I say:
Listen, Mr Buddika, it is the biggest evolutionist's fallacy to present population genetics as evolution. I know all about evolutionism and I know all about population genetics. They are not equivalent. I also know that you and Mammuthus and Dr Page present it as evolutionism and that is how you guys keep up the appearance of evolutionism. It is deception. You may be able to fool the public, you don't fool me.
Buddika says:
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot - you don't even know what the topic is since you are comprehensively unable to address it. The topic is "kinds" - (is any of this coming back to you now?) and it will stay that way until you adress challenges 1 and 2 competently and without equivocation and without circular argument and without defining species and pretending that this addresses the mechanism which prevents one **kind** from evolving into another **kind**.
I say:
In other words Buddika says: "I am unable to discuss the topic of evolutionism at a scientific and contemporary level". To bad, Buddika, I am and I addressed both items in a scientific way, so the ball is in your court.
Buddika says:
Please do let me know if I can make this any more clear at all, because I enjoy nothing more than repeating the same simple but unheeded instructions for the benefit of the fundamentally incompetent.
I say:
I am still waiting for your references. Probably you don't have the guts to discuss evolutionism in detail. It is always the same, and I am used to it.
Best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Budikka, posted 11-25-2002 1:09 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Mammuthus, posted 11-26-2002 4:40 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 169 by Mammuthus, posted 11-26-2002 6:59 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 170 by Quetzal, posted 11-26-2002 7:29 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 182 by Budikka, posted 11-28-2002 8:19 AM peter borger has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 168 of 191 (24367)
11-26-2002 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by peter borger
11-25-2002 11:28 PM


PB:
Listen, Mr Buddika, it is the biggest evolutionist's fallacy to present population genetics as evolution. I know all about evolutionism and I know all about population genetics. They are not equivalent. I also know that you and Mammuthus and Dr Page present it as evolutionism and that is how you guys keep up the appearance of evolutionism. It is deception. You may be able to fool the public, you don't fool me.
M: Poor Peter...YOU have to improperly define evolution to have any chance of arguing against it..it is really very laughable. YOU know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about evolution or population genetics contrary to your blathering in your post. You have demonstrated repeatedly that your knowledge of molecular biology is also extremely shallow....but I guess you have to keep up the appearance of knowing what you are talking about so that other creationists will respect you. Other gems from you are "sensible" sequences and "non-random" mutation..LOL! Your god must be very weak if you have to misrepresent evolution to make any kind of point.
Well, as long as you are playing the re-defining game Peter..it is clear that your MPG nonesense is purely a substitute for the bible and that your non-existent creaton morphogenetic field represents your non-existent god...(morphgenetic field=jesus?, creaton=god) you are pushing pure fundamentalist religious dogma...that is why you have never been able to provide a shred of evidence for any of your assertions...not a single one...you may fool the creationist public that you are saying something new..but not me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by peter borger, posted 11-25-2002 11:28 PM peter borger has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 169 of 191 (24378)
11-26-2002 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by peter borger
11-25-2002 11:28 PM


Oh and lest you persist in claiming that this definition is only proposed by SLPx and myself:
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by peter borger, posted 11-25-2002 11:28 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by peter borger, posted 11-26-2002 7:17 PM Mammuthus has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 170 of 191 (24382)
11-26-2002 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by peter borger
11-25-2002 11:28 PM


Peter: There's something I've been meaning to ask you:
quote:
Listen, Mr Buddika, it is the biggest evolutionist's fallacy to present population genetics as evolution. I know all about evolutionism and I know all about population genetics. They are not equivalent. I also know that you and Mammuthus and Dr Page present it as evolutionism and that is how you guys keep up the appearance of evolutionism. It is deception. You may be able to fool the public, you don't fool me.
I stand in awe of your knowledge. Please define "population genetics" for all of us ignorants.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by peter borger, posted 11-25-2002 11:28 PM peter borger has not replied

Ten-sai
Guest


Message 171 of 191 (24385)
11-26-2002 8:27 AM


Hi Mammuthus,
You are a liar.
Such emotionally charged words from an objectively minded scientist. Hardly impressive.
However, there is no evidence supporting the charge of derogatory and libelous remarks. Publishing defamatory conclusions is a mark of incompetence, but in light of what has been repeatedly said on this point, it would hardly seem profitable to say more except to suggest that if the pinch comes that your debating and courtesy vocabulary have run dry where you must resort to baser sources of expression, you might with profit do well to spend another season at the feet of your Daddy or some other great preceptor and learn the art of forbearance and being gracious. Indeed you might spend a little time enlarging your vocabulary and legal lore (that is, if you are still interested in learning more about real evidence); that is the best avenue to a tendency to deal squarely with the issue at debate.
So before I actually do leave the building, I will remain in the building. Get it? Not a lie; indeed, not even a promise. However, your response is clear and convincing demonstrative evidence of how easily erroneous assumptions lead to the wrong conclusions. How you make a living doing this is unparalleled to even the charlatan of the 14th century. You sound like Cauchon, and have the mindset of his constituents.
Keep up the Good Work Peter Borger!!!!
Peace,
Ten-sai

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Mammuthus, posted 11-26-2002 8:50 AM You have not replied
 Message 173 by mark24, posted 11-26-2002 9:07 AM You have not replied
 Message 174 by Quetzal, posted 11-26-2002 9:14 AM You have not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 172 of 191 (24388)
11-26-2002 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Ten-sai
11-26-2002 8:27 AM


You are a liar.
Such emotionally charged words from an objectively minded scientist. Hardly impressive.
M: Hardly emotionally charged. Actually, you cannot even ascertain my emotional state from a post. However, your frequent grandstanding, claims of being bored by the site, and overblown statements of "leaving the building" are at best misleading and at worst a lie.
T:
However, there is no evidence supporting the charge of derogatory and libelous remarks. Publishing defamatory conclusions is a mark of incompetenc
M: then you are incompetent..glad you admit it.
T: but in light of what has been repeatedly said on this point, it would hardly seem profitable to say more except to suggest that if the pinch comes that your debating and courtesy vocabulary have run dry where you must resort to baser sources of expression,
M: What debate? Your only assertion thus far is that science does not use or rely on evidence. You yourself have evaded any discussion of this assertion except to use typical internet troll behavior and insult anyone who posts responses. That you claim "it would hardly seem profitable to say more..." suggest you have no basis for your assertions and nothing substantive to say....if not, make your case and support it.
T:
you might with profit do well to spend another season at the feet of your Daddy or some other great preceptor and learn the art of forbearance and being gracious.
M:"that your debating and courtesy vocabulary have run dry where you must resort to baser sources of expression"..pot calling the kettle black? Why should I be gracious to you? You might profit by actually making a single post with any substance or even a hint at a point regarding evolution.
T:
Indeed you might spend a little time enlarging your vocabulary and legal lore (that is, if you are still interested in learning more about real evidence); that is the best avenue to a tendency to deal squarely with the issue at debate.
M: What issue and what debate? If you wish to discuss evolution it behooves you to demonstrate you know anything about science which thus far you have not done. Mark24 directly asked you about legal evidence definitions versus scientific and you avoided/ignored the post. As to vocabulary..why should I as a scientist give a crap about legal vocubulary? Your field is irrelevant to science despite your implications that it has a connection or is in some way superior.
M:
So before I actually do leave the building, I will remain in the building. Get it? Not a lie; indeed, not even a promise.
M: Just another empty statement
T: However, your response is clear and convincing demonstrative evidence of how easily erroneous assumptions lead to the wrong conclusions.
M: But is clear and convincing evidence that you have nothing of substance to say.
T: How you make a living doing this is unparalleled to even the charlatan of the 14th century. You sound like Cauchon, and have the mindset of his constituents.
M: Being insulted by a lawyer...I must really be doing something right ...what do you call the sinking of a ship with 50 lawyers on board? A good start!
T:
Keep up the Good Work Peter Borger!!!!
M: How are you in any position to evaluate Borger's "work"? Where is YOUR evidence that he has done good "work"? You both suffer from an inability to understand basic science, how to formulate a hypothesis, or gather supporting data so I can see how you, Ten-sai, would be a member of the Borger fan club...or maybe you are compensating for not having been able to cut it as a scientist and having had to settle for being a lawyer..tough break...I would be bitter to.
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 11-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Ten-sai, posted 11-26-2002 8:27 AM Ten-sai has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by peter borger, posted 11-26-2002 7:28 PM Mammuthus has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 173 of 191 (24389)
11-26-2002 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Ten-sai
11-26-2002 8:27 AM


Hi Ten-sai,
Post 162 please.
Thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Ten-sai, posted 11-26-2002 8:27 AM Ten-sai has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5871 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 174 of 191 (24392)
11-26-2002 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Ten-sai
11-26-2002 8:27 AM


Yep, definitely a lawyer. All those words and you didn't say a thing. DO you have a point somewhere in anything you've posted so far? If so, it escapes me completely - although I'd LOVE to see your explanation as to why you find Peter Borger's "work" is so compelling. Perhaps you have some additional "evidence" for his multipurpose genome, creaton waves/particles, and non-random mutations? Inquiring minds want to know...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Ten-sai, posted 11-26-2002 8:27 AM Ten-sai has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 175 of 191 (24505)
11-26-2002 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by Mammuthus
11-26-2002 6:59 AM


Dear Mammuthus,
Thanks for the fallacy:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and lest you persist in claiming that this definition is only proposed by SLPx and myself:
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
It is an 'ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM', an argument from authority. Well, Futuyama is no authority to me. (Who on earth is Futuyma? Your God? ). In other words it is no argument. Listen, Mammuthus, I am perfectly able to think and to see through such arguments. I already gave you guys THE definition of evolutionism, so don't confuse it again with population genetics.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Mammuthus, posted 11-26-2002 6:59 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by derwood, posted 11-26-2002 8:57 PM peter borger has replied
 Message 179 by Mammuthus, posted 11-27-2002 7:09 AM peter borger has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 176 of 191 (24508)
11-26-2002 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Mammuthus
11-26-2002 8:50 AM


Dear Mammuthus,
Yet another fallacy!
M: How are you in any position to evaluate Borger's "work"? Where is YOUR evidence that he has done good "work"? You both suffer from an inability to understand basic science, how to formulate a hypothesis, or gather supporting data so I can see how you, Ten-sai, would be a member of the Borger fan club...or maybe you are compensating for not having been able to cut it as a scientist and having had to settle for being a lawyer..tough break...I would be bitter to.
PB: To claim that your opponents do NOT understand evolutionism, and should listen to the guys who do understand it, is another argumentum ad verecundiam. You can't win a discussion using fallacies, Mammuthus, you know that.
It is always the same story. However, there is one thing I have to agree on. There is indeed nothing to understand about evolutionism since it is false.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Mammuthus, posted 11-26-2002 8:50 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Mammuthus, posted 11-27-2002 7:12 AM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 177 of 191 (24516)
11-26-2002 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by peter borger
11-26-2002 7:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
It is an 'ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM', an argument from authority. Well, Futuyama is no authority to me. (Who on earth is Futuyma? Your God? ). In other words it is no argument. Listen, Mammuthus, I am perfectly able to think and to see through such arguments. I already gave you guys THE definition of evolutionism, so don't confuse it again with population genetics.
For the interested reader, 'ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM' is not an argument from authority. It is the argument of pseudoauthority, such as claiming that because so-and-so is an expert molecular biologist, he is also an expert evolutionary biologst. THAT is the fallacy.
Of interest, however, is the way in whihc the megalomaniacal creationist actually engages in the very fallacious argumentation that he accuses others of doing! Futuyma IS an authroity on evolutonary biology, Borger is not, yet Borger wants the reader to believe that HE is the ultimate authority on all matters related to evoluton.
Never mind that he has claimed - and been unable to support (because there IS NO support) - that conserved sequences in introns falsifies the neutral theory.
I could list several other such idiotic blunders, but that one alone should erase any doubts as to whether or not Borger is competent - much less an authority - on any aspect of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by peter borger, posted 11-26-2002 7:17 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by peter borger, posted 11-26-2002 9:52 PM derwood has replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7665 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 178 of 191 (24517)
11-26-2002 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by derwood
11-26-2002 8:57 PM


Dr Page, and others,
Page says:
For the interested reader, 'ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM' is not an argument from authority. It is the argument of pseudoauthority, such as claiming that because so-and-so is an expert molecular biologist, he is also an expert evolutionary biologst. THAT is the fallacy.
I say:
For the interested reader: Dr PAge is mixing things up (as he and other evolutionists tried before). An 'argumentum ad verecundiam' is a PSEUDOargument from authority. It is the opinion of an expert, and the opinion is taken as argument. Even Dirty Harry knows that "opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one". Therefore, it is a pseudoargument, in other words a FALLACY.
Better face the facts: evolutionism has fallen! No strawman/fallacy can do anything about it.
Best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by derwood, posted 11-26-2002 8:57 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Mammuthus, posted 11-27-2002 7:15 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 183 by derwood, posted 11-28-2002 6:00 PM peter borger has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 179 of 191 (24559)
11-27-2002 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by peter borger
11-26-2002 7:17 PM


Get your facts straight and learn to read my posts...you attributed the definition of evolution that I am using to me and SLPx as an exclusive definition. I pointed out that it is also the definition used by evolutionary biologists that write the general textbooks that people like you (since you cannot read the primary literature) need to quote. Yet again, I falsified one of your statements
PB
I already gave you guys THE definition of evolutionism, so don't confuse it again with population genetics.
M: To quote you "Well, Peter, is no authority to me". Your definition is irrelevant for three reasons 1) It is wrong 2) You have shown no knowledge of the fields you are debating so why should I accept your definition of evolution 3)It is clear that you wish to redefine evolution as a strawman agrument since as it stands you cannot falsify it.
As to your constant references to my god this or my religion this 1) there are plenty of evolutionary biologists that believe in god (I am not one of them) 2) Futuyma is not my god...I am not feeble minded enough like you to be so dependent on a mythical being that requires ignoring science to make it through my daily life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by peter borger, posted 11-26-2002 7:17 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by peter borger, posted 11-28-2002 7:57 PM Mammuthus has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 180 of 191 (24560)
11-27-2002 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by peter borger
11-26-2002 7:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Mammuthus,
Yet another fallacy!
M: How are you in any position to evaluate Borger's "work"? Where is YOUR evidence that he has done good "work"? You both suffer from an inability to understand basic science, how to formulate a hypothesis, or gather supporting data so I can see how you, Ten-sai, would be a member of the Borger fan club...or maybe you are compensating for not having been able to cut it as a scientist and having had to settle for being a lawyer..tough break...I would be bitter to.
PB: To claim that your opponents do NOT understand evolutionism, and should listen to the guys who do understand it, is another argumentum ad verecundiam. You can't win a discussion using fallacies, Mammuthus, you know that.
It is always the same story. However, there is one thing I have to agree on. There is indeed nothing to understand about evolutionism since it is false.
best wishes,
Peter

++++++++++++++++++
You are the one who claims ad nauseum that you are an expert in molecular biology. You claimed Richard Dawkins opinions on evolution are irrelevant because he is a zoologist. You claimed Quetzal's arguments were not worth debating because he is not a molecular biologist...so if anyone is addicted to arguing from authority it is you.
As for Ten-sai...if you see any point that he is making about anything..or has shown that he knows anything about science..please feel free to share it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by peter borger, posted 11-26-2002 7:28 PM peter borger has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024