Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 31 of 191 (20897)
10-27-2002 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by peter borger
10-25-2002 7:59 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by peter borger, posted 10-25-2002 7:59 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by peter borger, posted 10-29-2002 7:35 PM Budikka has replied

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


Message 32 of 191 (21049)
10-29-2002 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Budikka
10-27-2002 12:58 AM


dear Buddika,
YOU WRITE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My attitude?
Are you somehow trying to pretend that it was not you who invaded this thread with an attitude, uninvited, and proceded to make post after post, completely off-topic (and quite contrary to debate rules on this board), in which you utterly failed to respond to a single challenge that was addressed to you?
Or are you denying that you have left 19 challenges unanswered?
MY RESPONSE:
First of all my compliments. Your attitude is improving. Not as rude as it was before. You are on the right track. Great.
YOU SAY:
Or are you denying that totally avoiding all challenges addressed to you means that every single contribution you made to this thread was meaningless?
That's three more questions I am waiting on you answering, so the tally is now 21 unanswered challenges.
MY RESPONSE:
The nitpicking-content of your mails I don't consider a challenge.
YOU SAY:
How ironic and hilarious that you post a "contribution" to this thread which is totally devoid of content and in which you accuse me of a meaningless contribution in my own thread!
I don't know what happened to your brain, but there is no evidence whatsoever that I can detect, that it has been in active use in any of your postings to this thread.
I SAY:
My brains are free from bias.
YOU SAY:
The only conclusion I can draw after perusing one of your own threads is that you are getting so badly thrashed in that one that you had to come into mine in a desperate attempt to get some relief. I am sorry I had to disappoint you, but you asked for it.
Now let me make this as perfectly clear as I can so that even you cannot fail to grasp it:
EITHER ADDRESS THE ISSUES IN THIS THREAD OR QUIT POSTING YOUR MEANINGLESS DRIVEL TO IT.
MY RESPONSE:
I started addressing the issues in your thread but your response is far from inviting to continue. It is not that hard to address them all. Next mailing I will explain to you how a kind can be conceived, and I can give you a definition if you like? Just let me know.
YOU SAY:
Budikka - Creationism adds nothing to any sphere of modern knowledge excepting that of acrobatics.
I SAY:
Talking about acrobatics. Evolutionism is the masteracrobat. Over the years it bended and stretched to fit in molecular biological observation. Now, among increasing amounts of biologist there is the rumour that molecular biology violates NDT and I checked it out. I didn't even have to search. Violations are abundant and you find them in all scientific journals and I presented a couple of them on this site. So, now, incapable of bending and stretching any longer it is broken. I am working on a new hypothesis that explains all biological observations. Sometimes hypotheses have to be adapted, renewed. I don't see a problem with that. But first, you have to show where the old theory is wrong. I did that.
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Budikka, posted 10-27-2002 12:58 AM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 10-30-2002 3:51 AM peter borger has replied
 Message 38 by Budikka, posted 10-31-2002 6:37 PM peter borger has replied

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


Message 33 of 191 (21079)
10-30-2002 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by peter borger
10-29-2002 7:35 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by peter borger, posted 10-29-2002 7:35 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by peter borger, posted 10-30-2002 8:21 PM Mammuthus has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 191 (21130)
10-30-2002 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Budikka
10-11-2002 1:40 AM


--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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Budikka, posted 10-11-2002 1:40 AM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Budikka, posted 10-31-2002 5:53 PM TrueCreation has replied

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


Message 35 of 191 (21143)
10-30-2002 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Mammuthus
10-30-2002 3:51 AM


dear Mammuthus,
Who are you? Evolutionism's personal guard?
best wishes,
Peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Mammuthus, posted 10-30-2002 3:51 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Mammuthus, posted 10-31-2002 3:06 AM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 36 of 191 (21156)
10-31-2002 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by peter borger
10-30-2002 8:21 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by peter borger, posted 10-30-2002 8:21 PM peter borger has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 191 (21214)
10-31-2002 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by TrueCreation
10-30-2002 5:42 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by TrueCreation, posted 10-30-2002 5:42 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by TrueCreation, posted 11-02-2002 11:32 PM Budikka has replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 191 (21216)
10-31-2002 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by peter borger
10-29-2002 7:35 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by peter borger, posted 10-29-2002 7:35 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by peter borger, posted 10-31-2002 9:30 PM Budikka has replied

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


Message 39 of 191 (21223)
10-31-2002 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Budikka
10-31-2002 6:37 PM


Dear Buddika,
My guess is that you are not really interested in debating.
Say 'please' and I will address all your 22 issues. If I wait a couple of weeks it will for sure be 300 lies, isn't it
best wishes,
Peter
[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-31-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Budikka, posted 10-31-2002 6:37 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Budikka, posted 11-01-2002 9:25 PM peter borger has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 191 (21305)
11-01-2002 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by peter borger
10-31-2002 9:30 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by peter borger, posted 10-31-2002 9:30 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by TrueCreation, posted 11-01-2002 10:51 PM Budikka has replied
 Message 42 by Quetzal, posted 11-02-2002 4:35 AM Budikka has replied

TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 191 (21312)
11-01-2002 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Budikka
11-01-2002 9:25 PM


"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.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Budikka, posted 11-01-2002 9:25 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Budikka, posted 11-02-2002 9:02 PM TrueCreation has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 42 of 191 (21330)
11-02-2002 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Budikka
11-01-2002 9:25 PM


Hi Budikka,
Look, I understand what you're trying to do - get PB to answer a straight question (luck be with you). However, since I just took Fred Williams to task for his rather unpleasant "style"(I think I characterized it as "infantile"), I guess I better show equal opportunity here and ask you to turn down the heat a bit. Evcforum tends to run a bit more smoothly than some other forums I've been on in spite of only having three moderators, primarily because we tend to police ourselves a lot. I'd appreciate it if you'd help by ratcheting down the rhetoric a few notches. Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Budikka, posted 11-01-2002 9:25 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Budikka, posted 11-02-2002 9:10 PM Quetzal has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 191 (21435)
11-02-2002 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by TrueCreation
11-01-2002 10:51 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by TrueCreation, posted 11-01-2002 10:51 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by TrueCreation, posted 11-02-2002 11:42 PM Budikka has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 191 (21436)
11-02-2002 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Quetzal
11-02-2002 4:35 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Quetzal, posted 11-02-2002 4:35 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-02-2002 10:09 PM Budikka has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 45 of 191 (21441)
11-02-2002 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Budikka
11-02-2002 9:10 PM


While I have a certain agreement with Q's recent statement (and I did make a comment back in message 2), I find that I must be in full agreement with Budikka's content of message 44. There is a lot being posted here, that is totally irrelevant to the topic. I think, for example, that TC's message 41 is totally without any relevant content.
I had just left another topic, where I was truly impressed by the quality of Budikka's messages - very long, but full of content.
People - If you have something relevant to post, post away. But one needs to try to supress urges to post "irrelevant blather".
This message also functions as a flag, for me to give this topic a little special attention.
I certainly encourage "non-admin" moderating efforts, such as mentioned by both Q and Budikka. Especially by the originator of the topic. There is way to much happening, for the three designated administrators to effectivly monitor and control. And things would grind to a big, messy halt, if administrators were to try to "nit-pick" on the quality of messages.
I try to remember to post my e-mail address, as my "signature". The other admins also have e-mail addresses available.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Budikka, posted 11-02-2002 9:10 PM Budikka has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Quetzal, posted 11-03-2002 4:03 AM Adminnemooseus 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