Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

PB:
The scientific explanation why the one multipurpose genome cannot transform into another multipurpose genome is due to the ‘Borger Exclusion Principle’. Only certain, well defined (or: divine-d ) creatons are allowed to operate at the respective defined levels of the morphogenetic field, so that it induces novel genes and/or genetic programs in preexisting genetic programs. That’s how genomes grow. Of course, we still have to scientifically proof the existence of creatons and the morphogenetic field, but I see that is a good scientific challenge. You don’t believe evolutionism is complete, I hope?M: Please define and provide an example of a "well defined creaton"
"allowed to operate.." allowed by who?
Your hypothesis is falsified by the fact of heredity.PB:
1) provide me with a scientific explanation of the first gene, genetic programs that sustains the simplest form of self-propagating biochemical circuit (organism).M: This is abiogenesis and not evolution. This would be better asked in the Origins of Life forum2) provide me with a scientific explanation —aside from gene duplications since I cannot use them to explain genetic redundancies-- where novel redundant genes have their origin.M: Funny, all scientists can use gene duplications to explain genetic redundancies. You can even experimentally generate duplications. So your refusal to accept data that supports this is not a valid refutation.3) provide me with a scientific explanation for the redundant genetic code andM: Please define redundant genetic code or do you mean degenerate code?4) next provide mw with a scientific explanation for the recently in eukaryota discovered second DNA associated genetic code, the Histon Code (Science 2001, 293:1074-80). And then,...I'll read the article and get back to you...but you do realize that mtDNA also uses a different code? And also inolveds RNA editing to produce transcripts?5) provide me with a scientific explanation for the assumed third DNA associated code: the coactivater code of transcription (Trends Biochem Sci 2002, 27:165-7.).I'll read this and get back to you on it to however, I do suspect that the article itself provides a scientific explanation...But I have a counter question..why do you assume that evolution requires a universal translation code? What is the basis for your assumption that this system has not evolved?Without answers evolutionism is dead. Period.M: Unwarranted conclusion and desperate wishful thinking.PB:
The issue is that although evolutionism tries to address the questions on origin, it actually doesn’t. That is: no origin of genes, no origin of new traits, no origin of new organism. However, there is not a single shred of compelling scientific evidence, only inference. Still, evolutionism is presented as scientific fact. OBJECTION!!!M: Evolution does not address the ultimate origin of life only speciation. For months in multiple threads your claim that there is no compelling evidence for evolution has been repeatedly rebutted. However, none of your own claims have been substantiated i.e. morphogenetic fields and creatons for example.PB:
Besides, I am able to explain all biological observations without using evolution,M: So can a religios fanatic. They do so with complete disregard to evidence and science.PB:
only by application of (non-)random mutations in a multipurpose genome. 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.M: Unwarranted conclusion...some evolutionists here are theistic evolutionists. Your non-random mutation misconception has been debunked counteless times. You merely disregard what has been said and then repeat and repeat your statement as if this will somehow eventually make it true.You yourself have provided no evidence for your hypothesis so how are you able to explain phenomenon that we can't?PB:
All biological data have to be discussed subject to evolutionism; otherwise you will have a hard time to get it in a peer reviewed journal. I you 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. I presented already several of them, and I can simply use them to falsify the evolutionary concepts of random mutation and selection at the level of the genome.M: And have been rebutted and the ideas debunked. As to publishing in a peer reviewed journal...you seem to be indicating a conspiracy theory.PB:
And now we know a bit more about genomes, it suddenly turns out that your stories can easily be falsified at the genomic level.M: unsupported statment.PB:
So, indeed you and the other atheists provided the world with a lot of non-sense that culminates now in a nihilistic worldview. It will take a long time before it has been undone.M: Most evolutionary biologists are christian....Darwin was as well. Your hatred of atheists exposes your non-scientific agenda to replace science with religion as you greatly fear those of us who live comfortably as non-believers.PB:
Actually, I think it cannot be undone anymore, since there is not another possibility for science then being atheistic. 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.M: If you think there is "not another possiblity for science then being atheisitic"...why did you bother studying science and getting a Ph.D.? An odd thing to do if you hate science as a discipline...I don't see any atheists becoming Roman Catholic Archbishops.I say:
Try to smash my view. Besides, it is a evolutionism versus creationism debate, and has nothing to do with persons. Try not to become personal in this discussion; some other guys/dolls already did that for you. I can assure you that I am completely insensitive to personal attack. I am a stoic and I will overturn evolutionism.M: I agree that one should avoid personal attacks. But it does happen anyway. At least I don't think you and I have been particularly belligerent towards one another personally though you may feel otherwise.I say:
More personal assaults.
What’s wrong with you evo-guys? Can’t win the discussions anymore in the light of contemporary biology?M: However, you yourself have claimed science is a nihlistic atheists cult which is unsupportable and I imagine extremely personally insulting to those who are theistic evolutionists. Also you are addressing a single person in the plural i.e. evo-guys. Would you be happy if I associated you with Wordswordsmans manner and tactics?I say:
Sounds familiar to me in discussions with evolutionists. I mean fighting off straw men and introduction of red herrings.M: Ah, so you don't think creationists do this? Would you like some examples from this forum? You have often not answered questions or gone off on tangents as well rather than refuting statements.I say:
Better start answering now. Problem is that evolutionism doesn’t answer the question where it is all about: Where do we come from?M: Africa some 200,000 years ago I say:
Maybe I could think of 300 evolutionist just-so-stories. I think I can, since I recently read a couple of books by Richard Dawkins.M: Rebutt the primary literature on genetics and also on evolution.I say:
When do I see these honest evolutionists on television, newspapers, in the media in general? Bob Bakker and his just-so-stories on dinosaurs? I could make them up. Easy. Find a fossilized feather and they can fly. I’ve completely had it with this type of presenting scientific discoveries.M: If you get your science by watching television then it is no wonder you are confused.I say:
The issue should be that you and your evo-proponents should get up to date with your theory. If dramatic changes have to be made: than sois. Ignorance and denial of biological phenomena will render that it will turn against itself. That is what is happening now. The introduction of meaningless term like 'very weak purifying selection'. OBJECTION!! Face then facts. If it cannot be explained by evolutinism the theory has to adapt!!! What you will get is more and more opposition. Assuredly from bio-molecular scientists. Do you really think that you can make me believe that three codes that govern life have evolved from scratch through randomness and selection?M: YesIs say:
I posted several articles that conflict evolution theory. See my thread molecular genetic evidence against random mutation; Letter 1-30 provide the complete falsification of NDT Furthermore, if you look a bit further into the evolutionary sciences you will discover that several phenomena conflict evolutionary rules at the genomic level. For instance The ZFY region or the ZFX region. Only a reductionistic view can hold up the hypothesis of evolution. A holistic view completely obliterates evolutionism (see also my discussion with Dr Page on the human ZFY/ZFX region). Here, again on the genomic level, evolutionism comes to a grinding halt.M: You have been rebutted by Page and others.I say:
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?M: Ah, the conspiracy theory again. I guess I should be angry that not every one of my papers got published in Naturee..must be a conspiracy against me.I say:
Actually I really have my doubt about the valididty of mtDNA mapping and the genetic clock based upon mtDNA. I recently spelled out an article on ancient man mtDNA. I discovered two things:
1) Mutation in mtDNA is not at random (see my thread more non-random evolution),M: You have been rebutted on this point2) the differences between human consensus sequence (hcs) and bonobo, hcs and chimp, and hcs and neanderthaler are 29/309, 24/309 and 27/309. So, if it tells something, it is not on human descent. Actually it falsifies human decent. Bottomline, mtDNA analysis cannot be used for such studies.
(REF: PNAS 2001, 98:537-42)M: You will have to elaborate on this since what you said makes no sense.I say:
Creation has a theory now. It is called ‘(non-)random mutations in a multipurpose genome’M: And it has been falsified.I say:
Evolutionism doesn’t provide ‘explanations’. It merely tells stories that are presented as fact in the media. By the way, maybe you didn’t get it yet, but science is not explanatory, it merely describes HOW things work. What you and your atheistic evo-friends are trying to do sell is that there is no purpose to everything. Well, I object to that, and therefore the harder you scream that everything evolved without purpose the harder I will kick this simplistic vision of life. I am going to bring down evolution theory, whether you like it or not! That’s my goal in life.M: I am not sure which is worse, your lack of understanding of science, your hatred of non-believers, or your megalomaniac assertionsMy comments.
Apparently, human and chimps are closely related with respect to DNA associated code #1, commonly referred to as the ‘genetic code’. However, I have the feeling that you are not completely updated with respect to contemporary biology, since there are additional DNA associated codes present in eukaryotic cells that regulate gene expression. These recently discovered codes —the ‘histon code’ and the ‘coactivator code’ may contribute to the differences between mamalia. So, evolutionists may claim that the first code is determining the appearance of organism and that high degrees of homology between such DNA sequences are proof for evolution, I 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. In fact I predict there is. Indirect evidence for the importance of the additional codes is provided by chromosomal aberrations like trisomy 21. 'Complete' homology of DNA code #1 still gives rise to huge phenotypic differences. In my opinion it is due to epigenetic modifications of DNA and probably a false reading of code #2 and/or code #3.M: Care to support your "opinions" with actual data?cheers,
M

Hi Peter,
I actually only jumped into this thread because you had not responded to my questions about your hypothesis so I will only briefly answer parts of this post and continue in the other more molecular oriented threads where you, me, and Quetzal have been debating..ok?M: Please define and provide an example of a "well defined creaton"
"allowed to operate.." allowed by who?MY RESPONSE:
You have to realise that it still is a hypothesis. However, in my opinion there have been creations --and maybe still are-- that gave rise to protein families genes. For instance if we have a look at the differences between pro- and eukaryota it can be inferred that creatons exist that interact with matter to create the histons. For instance, histon H4, histon H3 --but also the other histons-- seem to drop out of the sky. They never changed afterwards. The amino acid substitutions per site/10exp9 years < 0.014 ('Molecular Evolution' by R. Page and EC Holmes p235, ISBN 0-86542-889-1). Interestingly, histons can even be redundant, as recently observed for histon h1 in saccharomyces (not sure, will look it up).M: I never recall any problems with the evolution of histones6: Piontkivska H, Rooney AP, Nei M. Related Articles, LinksPurifying selection and birth-and-death evolution in the histone H4 gene family.
Mol Biol Evol. 2002 May;19(5):689-97.
PMID: 11961102 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]7: Tsunemoto K, Matsuo Y. Related Articles, LinksMolecular evolutionary analysis of a histone gene repeating unit from Drosophila simulans.
Genes Genet Syst. 2001 Dec;76(6):355-61.
PMID: 11922104 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]PB:
MY RESPONSE:
Once a genome has been formed by creaton interactions it is subject to the laws of genetics and thus to heredity.M: At what point? When you were born you had no genome so it poofed banged into existence? This actually goes against your argument as well that subpopulations of humans exhibit creation effects if subsequent to the poof bang appearance of the human genome it then was subject to the laws of genetics.M: This is abiogenesis and not evolution. This would be better asked in the Origins of Life forum.MY RESPONSE:
Since you are an atheist --at least that is what I think to read in your mails-- maybe you could elaborate a bit on it. I think it is the most important question to be addressed by atheists. If not addressed there can be no atheism.M: I would be glad to but it would be better to start a thread in the Origin of Life thread. If we entangle the two debates (evolution and abiogenesis) following posts will become impossible.MY REPONSE:
I guess you call it the degenerate genetic code since you think it is degenerate. I call it redundant genetic code, since it is not degenerate but the most optimal design using 64 symbols to write life and to avoid mutations that introduce aminoacids on the wrong spot.M: Is it REALLY the most optimal "design"? It is highly error prone. It also requires tRNA editing in many species to work. There are also things like amber suppression mutants that ignore stop codons under certain conditions...why all the fudging around among species if the code is so optimal?MY RESPONSE:
The major difference is that mtDNA has 4 stop codons. Apparently it requires more stringent control due to compactness of the genes on the mt-DNA.M: However in some plants the mt genome is enormous, not compact. So it does not truly require stringent control.MY RESPONSE:
Evolutiontheory/abiogenesis doesn't have a solution for the first genetic code, let alone for a code that generates a code due to the intermediate of another code. I simply don't believe that this all evolved by random mutation and selection. I am entitled to my believes isn't it?M: You are entitled to your beliefs and I have never said otherwise. I claim that you are not entitled to claim the beliefs are scientific but I do not deny anyone to believe what they want.MY RESPONSE:
I presented several examples that violate evolutionism. You don't want to see that. And, regarding the creatons and morphogenetic field: don't make it another straw man. I already mentioned in previous letters that I do not need this concept to falsify evolution theory. It is nothing but a hypothesis. What's wrong with a hypothesis?M: Nothing is wrong with a hypothesis. I work on a way out there hypothesis of why megafauna went extinct in the Late Pleistocene...it is however, a testable hypothesis and falsifiable. But my paragraph you are reacting to had more to do with the difference between abiogeneis and evolution distinctions.MY RESPONSE:
Maybe all the scientific evidence can be explained by '(non-)random mutations in a multipurpose genome. I think it can.M: Please explain quarks and muons PB:
MY RESPONSE:
Evolution theory cannot cover all observations in the genome as repeatedly demonstrated on this site. Now, you can do two things. i) Ignore/deny it. It doesn't make the theory more compelling. The contrary. ii) Adapt the theory. I recommend the second option. In the meantime I will work on my hypothesis.M: I don't ignore or deny valid criticisms of the theory and the theory adapts to new information all the time i.e. the placement of insectivores within the phylogenetic tree of Afrotheria.PB:
MY RESPONSE:
The more I get involved the more I get the feeling that I am wasting my time on this site.M: Though I sometimes feel the same way, you will not find other scientific venues any less contentious even when you agree with other people! And in your case, if you make extrodinary claims then you have to provide 1) extraordinary compelling arguments 2) extraordinary sound supporting data. This will be true no matter whether it is on this site or anywhere else.M: If you think there is "not another possiblity for science then being atheisitic"...why did you bother studying science and getting a Ph.D.? An odd thing to do if you hate science as a discipline...I don't see any atheists becoming Roman Catholic Archbishops.MY RESPONSE:
Science is fun and it is able to bring mankind good things (Do research on all topics and keep the good things). However, to study life should be agnostic, not atheistic, since only unbiased agnosticism can lead to true discoveries. Biased science will never reach that goal.M: However, in your case you start a prior with the assumption that 1) your hypothesis is correct 2) evolution is an evil atheist conspiracy so you are not fullfilling the unbiased agnosticism criteria you have set for yourself. Secondly, creationism is not science i.e. no testable hypothesis so my being an atheist has no bearing on my science.PB:
MY RESPONSE:
At least you are able to discuss. And often you have good comments.M: You and TB are the only creationists on board who argue about science rather than about the bible disproving or proving evolution or other fruitless discussions...so I enjoy it as well.YOU WRITE:M: However, you yourself have claimed science is a nihlistic atheists cult which is unsupportable and I imagine extremely personally insulting to those who are theistic evolutionists. Also you are addressing a single person in the plural i.e. evo-guys. Would you be happy if I associated you with Wordswordsmans manner and tactics?PB:
Based on what mtDNA Eve? I have my doubt on mtDNA clocks. See my reference in this thread: PNAS 2001, 98:537-542. Other results are provided by the ZFY region. It demonstrates either a very recent origin of man or a selective sweep of the Y chromosome. You choose for the selective sweep, I choose for the recent origin. Why? Because the ZFY region violates evolutionary rules.M: I think the Erlandsson, Wilson and Paabo paper talks about the discordance of dates for mtDNA and Y. It is a simple issue really. But we are in agreement on one thing, I don't believe in molecular clocks either...at least not for making sub million year divergence claims.PB:
I do not have to rebut genetics. Although I have examples that are able to rebut it. Evolutionism is easy to falsify at the level of the genome (as demonstrated).M: Please do rebut genetics and yes, you wuold have to rebut genetics to rebut evolution.PB:
MY RESPONSE:
If my believe has the size of a mustard seed, then yours assuredly has the size of a coconut.M: I like coconuts..prefer bananas I SAY:
Yes, and today I rebutted Dr. Page and you. Every rebut will have its rebut. That's how it goes.M: I missed that...which thread and which post? I am not being sarcastic but I did not find your response or do you mean the ZFX response?PB:
MY RESPONSE:
It is the PNAS articel I referred to earlier in this mail. Have a look at Table 1. It demonstrates exactly what I wrote. 1) Non-random mutations in subpopulations of ancient man, and 2)a falsification of common descent.
You will find out --like me-- that if you study subpopulations these findings always show up. It preludes the end of evolution theory.M: We can deal with this in the other thread.MY RESPONSE:
None of the above. How can it be that all sciences are subject to changes and evolutionism hasn't changed for almost 70 years? It tells me that something is severely wrong with the theory.M: Evolutionary theory has not changed in 70 years? I think you have to read more carefully. It is radically different than 70 years ago.cheers, M

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Buddika,

​

Buddika says among other irrelevant stuff:

​

"Now I am going to come into your thread and deal there with the issues you inappropriately raised here. Get ready."

​

My response:

​

I am ready and I am waiting. In the meantime you have found, read and rebutted all the references in my threads, I presume. So, let's get started. Let's find out whether you are up to date with contemporary biology.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

​

---

************************How about addressing any of my or Quetzals comments on your theory first?
Or presenting your oft mentioned non-clone never genetically changing organsism Cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Mammuthus,

​

The organism I was talking about is the Wollemia nobilis, a giant pine of the Auracariacea family and recently (1994) discovered in a national park north of Sydney. I almost finished a summary of the book by James Woodford (The Wollemi Pine, ISBN 1 876485 48 5) on the incredible observations on this tree. I will open a new thread on this topic, asap. It will be the end of evolutionism, and strong support for the hypothesis of a multipurpose genome.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

*********************************Looking forward to it
cheers,
M

I SAY:
My brains are free from bias.*********************Just to point out Peter, that your stated agenda is to fight the "atheism" and "nihlism" of evolution. This indicates that you indeed are extremely biased.cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Mammuthus,

​

Who are you? Evolutionism's personal guard?

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

****************************Na...Just an atheist nihlist trying to keep you on your toes

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Buddika,

​

I will solve your 22 failures. This week I will solve # 1. Every week I will solve at least one.

​

Buddika's failure #1:

​

1. Failure to scientifically define "kind".

​

My solution:

​

Kind = any group of organisms with compatible DNA that is able to produce offspring through mixture --either natural or artificial-- of their DNA.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

***************************+
So what "kind" are the sterile hybrids that cannot reproduce beyond the F1? Define, compatible DNA. If this definition is true why can hybrid zones only be maintained when the parent species are in proximity if they are a real self perpetuating "kind"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Chavalon,

​

That is the good part about the definition.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

​

---

*****************+The good part of this definition is that you cannot propose an experiment to test this hypothesis?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peter borger:
[B]dear Chavalon,I agree, that a hypothsesis should be testable. If the hypothesis fails it should be adjusted. The hypothesis of evolutionism can be tested for its predictions. Also, the MPG hypothesis can be tested.For instance, evolutionism predicts that genes that are under selective constraints should change less than genes not under selective constraint. It can be readily tested. It turn out that redundant genes do not change fasted than essential genes. It is a clearcut falsifiaction. So, the hypothesis fails.On the other hand the hypotheis of MPG hold that genes are in the genome due to DNA stabilising proteins and repair mechanism. Although selection is also part of the MPG genome --but merely to purify the genepool from degenerate genes-- it doesn't rely upon it. Genes are in the genome through stabilising mechanism, and thus it is predicted that essential genes and redundant genes change with the same rate. As a matter of fact, this is what we see.Case proven. Here the MPG hypothesis is superior to evolutionism and should be preferred. At least, according to scientific standard.
--------------------------------------Except that degenerate genes (pseudogenes) arise constantly, the facts of DNA repair contradict the MPG, not all redundant genes change with the same rate, selection works 7 days a week and not just on Tuesdays and Thursdays as you propose and evolutionary explanations for redundancy are established....MPG falsified...You are the weakest link..goodbye

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Peter,

​

By knocking the gene out. No effect on the organism's reproductivity and you know. Hundreds of these genes have been found already. They are in the genome without selection and thus they falsify NDT.

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

+++++++++++++++++Hmmm..knocking out a HERV without consequence falsifies evolution? Try again If knocking the gene out puts the organism at a competative disadvantage in its environment it will be selected against...MPG falsified Please list all the knock outs and the phenotypes with references....it should be easy since you made the claim that it has NO effect on the organism so there should be a broad literature for you to sample demonstrating that there is no effect on reproduction and no effect on organismal fitness....

Hi Budikka,
Just wanted to draw your attention to a challenge to you for a one on one debate issued by TrueCreation in the "Great Debate" forum.cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by Budikka:
Truecreation is not worth my time. He had his chance in this thread for a one-on-one and blew it. Now he wants to come simpering like a whipped puppy and beg me to go somewhere else? No! He isn't worth the effort. He is a time-waster - not quite up to Borger's skilled time-wasting efforts, but his arguments are even more lame - if that's possible.

​

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?

​

Budikka

---

***************************+Hi Budikka,I realize that you are upset (especially with Williams for obvious reasons). However, it might actually be enjoyable for you to debate TrueCreation one on one...perhaps with Tranquility Base (Adminiquility) on the one side as a creationist moderator and Percipient or Adminimoose on the evolution side as moderator?You may completely disagree with me on this. I am mostly curious how such a one on one challenge would work out on the EvC forum for future reference. Especially where two people or a small group have a concentrated debate on a subject without getting dragged off topic.Anyway, just a thought.Best wishes,
M

PS. Was that a joke about not believing Jesus Christ existed? 'Cause it made me laugh. When you are finished laughing you might want to actually supply some evidence for your claims..including the existence of jesus....you make me laugh to

domo arigato mr. robotoT:
How does evidence of Jesus Christ's existence prove that all life forms arose by naturalistic means through random mutations and selection is true?M: You made the assertion that it was silly to not believe in jesus christ...so, show us the evidence.T:
Btw, do you even have a clue what evidence is (?), 'cause I'd like a definition if you wouldn't mind (then you'll get the evidence). I think you're out of your field when you opine on the logic of evidence. Stick to what you can observe, test, and demonstrate in the lab.M: Aha, so actual obsevations, data , experimental results don't count as evidence for you? LOL!....you should lay off smoking crack for a while.T:
Meanwhile, reread my post/proposition about the Achilles' Heel of evolution, and bury us with the evidence in support of its null hypothesis. Make sure you cite peer-reviewed resources so as to be consistent with the "objective" standard. Good luck!M: I have been burying dolts like you with evidence for months...that you don't have the brains to read it is your own problem.T:
Peace,
Ten-saiM: You hardly seem the peaceful (or particularly knowledgeable) typeT:
PS. Are you guys the thought police or something? Y'all take this waaaay too seriously, especially from the perspective that life itself is purposeless and meaninglessM: Who is policing your thoughts? Not much to police thus far...and if you think that everyone here thinks life is meaningless then you have even more to learn than just basic biology.

M-So, I take it your definition of evidence is as follows:actual obsevations, data , experimental results'Cause under this impotent definition (actually it most certainly is NOT a definition of evidence but rather a very lazy description of the scientific method, i.e. a process -- see, I told you that you were out of your field!), even a "dolt" like me wouldn't be able to show you evidence of Julias Caesar's existence for example, much less Jesus Christ's. Sheesh! BTW, did you mean any data? Want to take another stab at it? Or...M: So the wonderful "proof" and "evidence" for your dillusional brain dead worldview is that you think it is true? LOL!!!
But at least you concede there is no evidence for jesus christ...so I guess it is time for you to worship something else.T:
Have it your way right away right now(just like Burger King!) and, under your very own self-serving definition of evidence, I ask you again to bury us with the "evidence" that life arose by chance random processes from a swirling dust ball. We both know you can't, never have, neither here nor there, now or some other time past; are you too insecure to admit it?M: It is clear you have not read a single post in any of these forums ....and quoting a Burger King jingle...wow..your scholarship is awe inspiring.T:
That said, I guess we can both run along now, you believing in the evidence fairy, and me realizing the truth that your evidence fairy doesn't exist.M: You are free to be as dillusional and ignorant as you wish...and from your posts it is clear you wish to be extreme in both qualities.T:
Anyway, believe what you want, or don't believe; what do I care? Just don't think you are going to get very far with me making up stories about evidence when you can't even define the word.M: Interesting...so your intention was to make up stories rather than provide evidence...nice admission....and if you don't care about this subject then why are you bothering to post about it? LOL!