Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

dear Chavalon,C: With respect, Peter and Buddika, you are straying off topicPB: No, I still have to address 22-6=16 failures to free myself from Buddika's allegations. C: 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?PB: What is a species? What is a genus? What is what....etcetera.C: *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?PB: Surely, somebody can define evolutionism in an unambiguous and testable way. We already discussed the population genetics definition, and that NOT evolution, that's the MPG. If evolution is change over time than I certainly evolved from my parents.I will give you the definition:
"Evolutionism is the movement that claims that all life forms arose by naturalistic means through random mutations and selection."There is NOT a skerrick of evidence for this assertion, and the observations we do on biology point in the opposite direction.C: There are several questions almost equivalent to 'What is a kind?' -What prevents the transmutation of kinds?PB: Already discussed.C: Why should macroevolution be impossible?PB: It requires novel genes and genetic programs. By novel genes I mean NOVEL genes. For instance, the RAG2 gene in mammals that are involved in DNA recombination in B cells that improve immunoglobulins. Unrelated to other genes.C: What limits the variability of an MPG?PB: The genes present in the genome of course.Best wishes,
Peter

PB,I think you hit the nail on the head here:

quote:

---

I will give you the definition:
"Evolutionism is the movement that claims that all life forms arose by naturalistic means through random mutations and selection."

​

There is NOT a skerrick of evidence for this assertion, and the observations we do on biology point in the opposite direction.

---

Indeed. What else is there to discuss? This trade secret alone is the Achilles' Heel of evolution and the very reason why no reasonable person would buy into the lie that evolution is a fact of science. Guess that's where all the insecurity comes from . . .Bitter Boy Buddika,You are one entertaining ole chap! Are you really as upset as your posts indicate? Beacause, if so, you're going to pop a blood vessel soon. And all over some little insignificant thing like evolution being debunked. You can still be an atheist though, or agnostic, or nihilist, or whatever you want. Can't you be that without evolution? I guess it's only human to get upset when your life long held beliefs are challenged.Peace,Ten-saiPS. Was that a joke about not believing Jesus Christ existed? 'Cause it made me laugh.

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

Ten-sai,

quote:

---

Bitter Boy Buddika,

​

You are one entertaining ole chap! Are you really as upset as your posts indicate? Beacause, if so, you're going to pop a blood vessel soon. And all over some little insignificant thing like evolution being debunked. You can still be an atheist though, or agnostic, or nihilist, or whatever you want. Can't you be that without evolution? I guess it's only human to get upset when your life long held beliefs are challenged.

---

That was impressively arrogant for a first post. Given that its only human to get upset when your life long beliefs are challenged, perhaps you could explain to the rest of the world how and when evolution was shown to be a lie.In the words of Bill Hicks "...I'll just strap myself in..."PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

duplicate deleted[This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 11-21-2002]

Truecreation: "Oh Please buddika. Don't expect me to continue to plague this thread by responding to your horrible sophistry, inconsiderate, and prejudicial forthcoming attitude."I have requested more than once that those who cannot deal with the issues in this thread **stay out of it**. It is you who keeps hanging around here like a bad smell. Creationists get the attitude they deserve from me. If even one of you had engaged the issues **in this thread** you would have got an entirely different response. Don't blame me for your brazen shortcomings.When you have responded in any meaningful sense to **the issues that started this thread**, you will have something to crow about, but until and unless you do, all you are is a hugely overinflated windbag. Period.You failed miserably to even begin to attack anything I have said **in this thread**, and then have the ridiculous fraudulence to open another thread, begging me to start it for you. How pathetic is that?Truecreation: "And my arguments are, how did you say it, 'lame'? I don't know how you come to such a rediculous conclusion"You're so right. What was I thinking of? What arguments? You haven't made any.Truecreation: "I explained to you in that thread of yours why your debate was not reasonable basically rendering you as Hovinds evo twin."You have answered nothing, argued nothing, explained nothing. If oyu thought the debate (which, once again for the learning impaired, **was** **not** **aimed** **at** **you**) was unreasonable, why did you simply not **stay out of it**?You interloped, uninvited and largely off-topic. I threw it open to you and basically invited you to name your poison. I gave you multiple options, including the option of posting your best arguments. You chickened out, and then opened a separate thread desperately begging me to start it off for you. These are the facts. In short, your position is foundationless and your "arguments" non-existent.Once again (and do, please, try and grasp this concept): either deal with **the issues in this thread** or stay out of it. I note that you said some time ago that you were supposedly out of this thread, but you keep creeping back in. Obviously your promise to stay out of it was nothing but more creationist lying!Please do not creep in here again unless you are prepared to deal ***with the issues in this thread*** or have the decency to admit you cannot answer the arguments and cannot support your position in this thread, just like the other creationists who have tried to shore up their hopeless case. How can I make this any more clear, even to a creationist???????Truecreation: "Well when you feel your (sic) up for it, I'll be right there with you."If you learned some grammar and spelling you might be in a position to try and make a case, but I am not holding my breath.Now if there are no creationists who can deal with the arguments made in the opening post **to this thread**, I will ask that it be closed. Everyone else, please stay out of it.Budikka

Truecreation had a chance for a one on one in this thread. When Bohar failed to show up, and Borger couldn't even grasp the topic, let alone adhere to it, I offered Truecreation a chance to take over, but he has so far chickened out. I even offered to let him give his ten best arguments. We could have gone at them one at a time, but once again, Truecreation chickened out.His latest venture is to open his own thread and beg me to start it for him by proving a negative. If this is his idea of debate, then it makes as much sense as creationism - in other words, it makes no sense at all!Budikka

I believe I am the only one *on* topic - especially since I opened this thread! It is people like Truecreation and Borger who have repeatedly strayed off it or failed to grapple with it.Borger offered to answer the 20-some challenges that I have tossed his way ever since he arrived here, but he has so far failed to address the first two of these, which are linked, and these are the very two that you mention:1. 'What is a kind?' -2. What prevents the transmutation of kinds?He offered totally inadequate responses. He has admitted that his definition of "kind" was circular (and therefore useless), and his attempt to define a mechanism which prevents one "kind" from transforming into another "kind" was nothing of the "kind". It was, instead, an attempt to explain why species are separate, which does not explain anything for Borger, since he has not equated "kind" with species. Indeed, he cannot, dare not.I have repeatedly been trying to force him back to properly answering these first two (and pivotal questions), only to be ignored. He ignores me because he knows he cannot answer the questions competently.It ought to be the easiest thing in the world for any creationist to answer these two simple questions. They are the ones claiming that each "kind" was created distinctly from every other "kind" and that there is absolutely no chance whatsoever of any transmutation between "kinds".If this were true, there would be obvious and unmistakeable distinctions between "kinds" and the definition of "kind" ought to be blatantly obvious. I have been asking this same question for two or three years and no creationist has offered anything close to a useful answer.Without an answer to both these questions, creationism is completely defunct.Budikka

Borger: "No, I still have to address 22-6=16 failures to free myself from Buddika's allegations."You have yet to answer the first two. Once again, please do not weigh down this thread with any other nonsense until you have given satisfactory answers to the first two questions regarding "kinds", which have been, once again, put in front of you, this time by Chavalon.You have admitted that you gave a circular answer in place of a definition of "kind", so your math (22-6=16) is meaningless. You explanation of the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from becoming another is meaningless also, since you only explained (if that) what it is which keeps species apart. Since you apparently do not equate "kind" with species (although this is admittedly hard to determine since you have failed to define "kind"), and since speciation has been observed, your "explanation" explained the wrong thing.Borger: "What is a species? What is a genus? What is what"Read a good biology book for the answers to these questions. The defintions used by evolutionists are **not at issue** here. What is at issue, what is at the basis of this thread to which you are supposed to be responding, is whether creationists have made a case, and the two central foundations to creationism are workable, meaningful definitions to the first two questions regarding "kind".Please do not post another thing to this thread unless it is a meaningful answer to those two fundamental questions.Borger: "Surely, somebody can define evolutionism"Since you made up this word, it is up to you to define it. It is not our job to make up explanations for your fantasies.Borger: "There is NOT a skerrick (sic) of evidence for this assertion, and the observations we do on biology point in the opposite direction."140 years of science prove you wrong. When you have published papers **in refereed science journals** establishing a case for evolution theory being in error, then you can make this claim. Otherwise, stop dreaming and answer the first two questions **or have the common decency to admit that you cannot do so**.Borger: "[macroevolution] requires novel genes and genetic programs. By novel genes I mean NOVEL genes. For instance, the RAG2 gene in mammals that are involved in DNA recombination in B cells that improve immunoglobulins. Unrelated to other genes."Novel genes arise through duplication and mutation. Duplication and mutation are observed facts of life. There is scientific evidence to support this. When you have published **in peer-reviewed science journals** papers refuting this, then please feel free to crow about it.Now can we please get back to the **topic of this thread** and have you properly answer the first two questions regarding "kinds"?Budikka

This thread has enough unsupported creationist garbage in it as it is. Please - and this applies to all who read this thread - if you do not have meaningful and germaine arguments to make in favor of or against the topics raised **in the opening message** of this thread, please do not post anything in this thread.Ten-sai: "You are one entertaining ole chap! Are you really as upset as your posts indicate? Beacause, (sic) if so, you're going to pop a blood vessel soon. And all over some little insignificant thing like evolution being debunked. You can still be an atheist though, or agnostic, or nihilist, or whatever you want. Can't you be that without evolution? I guess it's only human to get upset when your life long held beliefs are challenged."How thoroughly hypocritical to write this blathering trash and then sign off with the message "peace"! I laughed so hard I almost did burst a vessel. Another one who equates evolution and ahteism. This alone dismisses his/her vacuous case completely.Only a blind believer is capable of making such clueless remarks, and offering nothing but more unsupported blind belief to sit on top of the unsupported heap of stinking, festering, rotting blind belief that is the only thing that creationists *do* create!Once again, especially to those who are learning impaired, who oddly enough seem to be entirely on the side of creation, if you do not have any useful, meaningful, on-topic points to make, **DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD**!No wonder the creationists cannot understand evolution if they cannot understand a simple, straight-forward rule like that. Evolution actually requires some thought!Budikka

Just a brief word of correction in response to comments such as those Primordial Egg has echoed: "Given that its only human to get upset when your life long beliefs are challenged..."First of all, this thread has yet to see me upset. And if I were to become so, it would not be with the creationist lies that "evolution has been overthrown"! Evolution will be solidly in place long after creationist posters in this thread have become fossils themselves, their blind beliefs buried with them.The problem is not evolution, it is arrogant creationists who are completely dispossessed of the facts, yet who blather endlessly about the death of evolution and offer not a shred of evidence to support their mindless rantings, and who cannot even face simple layman arguments such as the ones with which I opened this thread.The whole creationist position is typified in this thread alone. Someone like Christopher Bohar (whom I am increasingly forced to believe is the fictitious "creation" of Fred Williams or his ilk) comes into my personal mailbox blathering insulting stuff and nonsense, and when I nail him on it, he vanishes into thin air.This is creationism. This is the creationist "model". This is the "Theory of Creation": the cube root of nothing! It has no substance, no steam, no argument, no science, no support, no nothing! Creationists cannot even support their case against someone like me, a rank amateur, so how on Earth are they going to make a case in the harsh, unforgiving light of science?Evolution is not a life-long belief for me. It (and atheism, for that matter, which is separate and was arrived at by a separate route) is the default position I was forced into when I finally outgrew the mythology of my religious upbringing and started to actually look at the facts of the world with an unbiased mind.This evolution=atheism lie is another in a long, long line of creationist stock lies, and it is completely overthrown by Glenn Morton, a young-Earth creationist turned evolutionist, who managed to "evolve" without kissing his God goodbye. His story and arguments can be found here:
http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htmBudikka

Hoo-boy! B-I'm not kidding, you are really making me laugh! I can't believe you are this upset. It's killing me!!!PE-Arrogance or confidence? I guess it's just a matter of perspective. Not that I meant in any way to suggest a 'creationist' (whatever that means) was more intelligent than you! Now run along and pat yourself on the back for being soooo smart. If I was in the same room as you, I'd pat you on your back myself. (really!). Your words have left me speechless.M-How does evidence of Jesus Christ's existence prove that all life forms arose by naturalistic means through random mutations and selection is true? 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.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!Peace,Ten-saiPS. 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 meaningless ...

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

dear buddika,You say:You have admitted that you gave a circular answer in place of a definition of "kind", so your math (22-6=16) is meaningless.I say;Did you know that math is tautological too? So why bother about a tautology?Best wishes,
Peter

Dear Buddika,Buddika says: "Novel genes arise through duplication and mutation."I say: O yes? How do you know? From your letters it is clear that you do not know anything about contemporary biology, but you know that genes arise by gene duplications and mutation. I will help you out of the dream: genetic redundancies (ever heard of?) are not associated with duplications, and do not change faster over time than essential genes. (Tautz D, A genetic uncertainty problem, Trends in Genetics; 2000, Volume 16: p475-477) So, your concept is falsified and don't bring it up again. It is humbug. Novel genes do not arise by duplication and mutation. Clear cut evidence: the RAG2 gene in mammals do not have related proteins. If all you can do is parroting evolutonists outdated visions, please do not respond anymore. If you have an original idea, please respond.Best wishes,
Peter