Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

dear Buddika,You say:
There is no such thing as "evolutionism". How many times are we going to have to tell you this before it sinks in? It's "E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N". Get it?Pluralis majestatis? King Buddika?I recommend you to take some courses in 1) foreign languages [so you can read all references, or do you think English is all there is?], 2) contemporary biology [so you understand what I write], 3) evolutonism, and molecular rules of evolutionism.
Maybe YOU didn't get it, but 'evolution' can only mean "the process of evolving", it can not mean the scientific movement that holds that all life forms arose through this process. Then -ism is added to the term evolution: EVOLUTIONISM. Likewise, creation and creation-ism. Rules of linguistics, easy to understand.(And buy a dictionary, so you can look up difficult words.)Andy (sic) real questions? Don't hesitate to ask.best wishes,
Peter

dear Buddika:Your failure #4:Buddika says:4. Failure to support (in any fashion) the common creationist claim thatported evidence that "evolution is falling apart."I will give you 10 examples that bring down evolutionism:1) the redundant Src kinase family,
2) the redundant alpha actinin family,
3) the 1G5 gene
4) the swim reflex in conjunction with the gag reflex in newborn
5) the ancient mtDNA in human/primates
6) the ZFY region
7) the ZFX gene/exon
8) the IL-1beta incongruence
9) the LCR16a gene
10)the wollemi's invariable DNAAlthough one would be sufficient, I give you ten to ponder.22-4=18best wishes,
Peter

Once again you fail utterly with references.Once again you fail utterly with explanations.Once again you are trying to divert the topic away from your failure into other areas (where you have, from what I have seen, still fail).Once again you jump to alternate topics while avoiding dealing with the issues at hand, which are, to remind you:1. Your complete and utter failure to define "kind" in any meaningful way whatsoever. Note that you have admitted that your definition is circular and therefore fails to define anything.2. Your complete and utter failure to define any mechanism which might prevent one "kind" from evolving into another "kind". Note that your paltry explanation as to what keeps species separate does not even begin to address evolution between "kinds".**When** you have answered these two topics, and **if** you can ever get it into your head that you need to explain yourself and provide references when broaching a new topic, such as your ten examples, at least one of which has already been defeated then perhaps we can move on, but we are not leaving the topic of "kinds" until and unless you either answer the two points above satisfactorily, or admit that you cannot.Is there any way at all that I can make this any more clear even to you?Budikka

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

Dear Budikka,Buddika's failure #5:Buddika says:
5. Failure to rebut any examples of transitional forms that creationists try to claim are not transitional.I say:
What transitional forms? Never seen one that hasn't got an exlanation in the MPG paradigm.22-5=17best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-17-2002]

Dear Buddika,Buddika's failure #6:6. Failure to list the solid, scientific evidence that proves that Jesus Christ existed.MY RESPONSE:
There are at least 2 independent sources for historical evidence of the existence of Jesus.1) Read the jewish historian FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS, who lived from approx 37-100. He mentions Jesus twice in his work 'Jewish Antiquities'. It has been translated in English, so it shouldn't give any problems.2) A Jesus is mentioned as 'brother of James', who is the son of a Joseph, on the recently discovered James' Ossuary. According to scholars this may well be Jesus of Nazareth.
According to sceptics it may well be not, I guess. 22-6=16best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 11-25-2002]

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

When you have dealt with the **first two issues**, that of defining "Kind" and that of defining the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind", then, **and only then** will we move on.Until then, you are requested not to post another single word to this thread that does not address one or other of those two issues.Deal with the issues that are still unanswered before you try to mvoe on and disguise your failures. Or **have the common decency to admit that you are beaten**.If there is any way, any way at all, or anything I can do, write, say, think, or feel, to get this simple message through your thick skull, please, please, please, do let me know.Budikka

--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?------------------

Once again, until and unless you can deal with the **first two issues** - the unanswered challenges of defining "kind" and defining the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from evolving into another, it is pointless to raise other issues.Deal with your earliest failures first, before you add yet more failures to your total, especially since the Josephus quote is an obvious and long-atested later interpolation, and your blather about a bone box that could have belonged to anyone is useless. Please look up science in a good dictionary. Then perhaps you will grasp what I mean by "scientific evidence".**BUT BEFORE YOU DO THAT, DEAL WITH THE UNANSWERED CHALLENGES REGARDING "KIND" BEFORE YOU POST ANOTHER SINGLE WORD TO THIS THREAD**.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

"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]

Dear Buddika,Buddika says:"Deal with your earliest failures first, before you add yet more failures to your total,"I am still dealing with the first failure: 'Buddika' Best wishes,
Peter

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Buddika,

​

Buddika's failure #6:

​

---

With respect, Peter and Buddika, you are straying off topic From a purely scientific POV, this question of kinds is the crux of the differences between supporters of mainstream genetics and those who are seeking alternatives, isn't it?*Surely* someone can define 'kind' in an unambiguous and testable way. (In the context of genetics, I suggest that this is a minimum requirement for a creationism to be called 'scientific'.) In the absence of a satisfactory definition, it's just a 'house built on sand', no?There are several questions almost equivalent to 'What is a kind?' -What prevents the transmutation of kinds?Why should macroevolution be impossible?What limits the variability of an MPG?(edited for spelling)[This message has been edited by Chavalon, 11-19-2002][This message has been edited by Chavalon, 11-19-2002]