Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 121 of 191 (23650)
11-22-2002 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Ten-sai
11-21-2002 9:56 PM


domo arigato mr. roboto
T:
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-sai
M: You hardly seem the peaceful (or particularly knowledgeable) type
T:
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 meaningless
M: 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Ten-sai, posted 11-21-2002 9:56 PM Ten-sai has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 191 (23654)
11-22-2002 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Ten-sai
11-21-2002 9:56 PM


quote:
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
If I was in the same room as you, I'd call the police. You're better off sticking to burning witches.
PE
------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Ten-sai, posted 11-21-2002 9:56 PM Ten-sai has not replied

Ten-sai
Guest


Message 123 of 191 (23666)
11-22-2002 7:30 AM


no brains, dolts, witch hunts, crackheads ....
Not such a good way to argue young men or women.
PE-
Call the police? What, the thought police because yours are challenged? Or did you have some other legal theory in mind? In the U.S., if you were to call the police based on nothing more than a desire to harass someone, you could go to jail yourself. Don't know how they do it over there though. Got any more good ideas?
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...
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?
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. 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.
Peace,
Ten-sai

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 7:54 AM You have not replied
 Message 127 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-22-2002 8:48 AM You have not replied
 Message 129 by John, posted 11-22-2002 9:09 AM You have not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 124 of 191 (23669)
11-22-2002 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Ten-sai
11-22-2002 7:30 AM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Ten-sai, posted 11-22-2002 7:30 AM Ten-sai has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 6:10 PM Mammuthus has replied

Ten-sai
Guest


Message 125 of 191 (23671)
11-22-2002 8:12 AM


M-
Did you mean delusional? Or is the illusion that you understand the concept of evidence so overpowering it has escaped your ability to define the word?
Still waiting for the definition...
Peace,
Ten-sai
PS. Having fun with the name calling? B/c it certainly says more about you than me. All I can say is keep it up! I'm flattered to tap into the deep intellectual recesses of your brain that Dust Ball gave you!

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 8:26 AM You have not replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 126 of 191 (23673)
11-22-2002 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Ten-sai
11-22-2002 8:12 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Ten-sai:
M-
Did you mean delusional? Or is the illusion that you understand the concept of evidence so overpowering it has escaped your ability to define the word?
Still waiting for the definition...
Peace,
Ten-sai
PS. Having fun with the name calling? B/c it certainly says more about you than me. All I can say is keep it up! I'm flattered to tap into the deep intellectual recesses of your brain that Dust Ball gave you!

*****************
wait no longer...
Webster's defn.
Evidence
1 a : an outward sign : INDICATION b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
and based on evidence
scientific method
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Now let's see your evidence or supporting data for creationism....
can you support it using the scientific method or are you limited to saying it is true because it is true because you think it is true...that has been your logic thus far.
predictions:..no evidence forthcoming from you with only reply an ad hominem attack as a reply

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Ten-sai, posted 11-22-2002 8:12 AM Ten-sai has not replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 191 (23676)
11-22-2002 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Ten-sai
11-22-2002 7:30 AM


quote:
Call the police? What, the thought police because yours are challenged? Or did you have some other legal theory in mind? In the U.S., if you were to call the police based on nothing more than a desire to harass someone, you could go to jail yourself. Don't know how they do it over there though. Got any more good ideas?
Hehe....very droll. Your father was a hamster and your mother smells of elderberries.
Talking of which, is it not time you gave your keyboard back to mummy and daddy and went to play in the road, or something?
Seriously though, whats your point?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Ten-sai, posted 11-22-2002 7:30 AM Ten-sai has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Quetzal, posted 11-22-2002 9:02 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

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


Message 128 of 191 (23680)
11-22-2002 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by Primordial Egg
11-22-2002 8:48 AM


quote:
Your father was a hamster and your mother smells of elderberries.
And don't come back or I will taunt you again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Primordial Egg, posted 11-22-2002 8:48 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 191 (23682)
11-22-2002 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by Ten-sai
11-22-2002 7:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Ten-sai:
no brains, dolts, witch hunts, crackheads ....
Not such a good way to argue young men or women.

One speaks to one's audience.
quote:
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!

Lol.... I guess you are in your field? If so, I feel very sorry for the field.
What is your definition of evidence? Oh, and prove that you are in the field first, or your opinion isn't valid.
quote:
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!
Are you joking? Insane?
quote:
did you mean any data?
Qualify. What are you getting at?
quote:
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?
All of the evidence points to precisely that.
quote:
Anyway, believe what you want, or don't believe; what do I care?
Don't know. What DO you care?
quote:
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.
Well, set the example for us.
quote:
Ten-sai
Does this moniker reveal a penchant for playing video games?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Ten-sai, posted 11-22-2002 7:30 AM Ten-sai has not replied

Fred Williams
Member (Idle past 4855 days)
Posts: 310
From: Broomfield
Joined: 12-17-2001


Message 130 of 191 (23792)
11-22-2002 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Mammuthus
11-22-2002 7:54 AM


LOL indeed! Mammuthus, why am I not surprised you deny Jesus Christ existed? Only a small handful of incredibly incompetent historians doubt he existed. You might as well deny Ceasar existed, or Alexander, or many others of antiquity. And you call Ten-Sai the "dillusional brain dead" one? Methinks you should take a look in the mirror. You really are something else. There are virtually no historians of any ilk, including a vast number of liberal historians, who doubt his existence. The few times these contrarians speak out, they come across as wacko fruitcakes and are not taken seriously by their peers.
Where the debate lies is whether or not He is who He says he is. If anyone is interested, I would recommend any of Simon Greenleaf's writings. His 'Testimony of the Evangelists' is available online:
http://www.markers.com/ink/sgtestimony.htm
I also recommend Strobel's "A Case for Christ" available at all major online bookstores.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 7:54 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Mammuthus, posted 11-22-2002 6:37 PM Fred Williams has not replied
 Message 135 by Budikka, posted 11-23-2002 10:06 AM Fred Williams has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6474 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 131 of 191 (23801)
11-22-2002 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 6:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Fred Williams:
LOL indeed! Mammuthus, why am I not surprised you deny Jesus Christ existed? Only a small handful of incredibly incompetent historians doubt he existed. You might as well deny Ceasar existed, or Alexander, or many others of antiquity. And you call Ten-Sai the "dillusional brain dead" one? Methinks you should take a look in the mirror. You really are something else. There are virtually no historians of any ilk, including a vast number of liberal historians, who doubt his existence. The few times these contrarians speak out, they come across as wacko fruitcakes and are not taken seriously by their peers.
Where the debate lies is whether or not He is who He says he is. If anyone is interested, I would recommend any of Simon Greenleaf's writings. His 'Testimony of the Evangelists' is available online:
http://www.markers.com/ink/sgtestimony.htm
I also recommend Strobel's "A Case for Christ" available at all major online bookstores.

+++++++++++++++++++++
Hey reading disorder boy Williams...I asked him to give evidence for the existence of jesus....of course you have shown yourself to be completley incompetent in this regard on every occassion presented to you and in every possible subject so it is hardly surprising in this case either. Is there actually anything you ARE good at?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 6:10 PM Fred Williams has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 191 (23876)
11-23-2002 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Ten-sai
11-21-2002 9:56 PM


Ten-Sai, who hypocritically signs his abusive messages with "Peace" (I wonder what kind of Christian Jesus thinks you are?!!), it appears to me that you have neither respect for me nor for the rules of these boards.
Let me request of you one final time: Please do not post any messages to this thread unless you are prepared to follow the rules and directly support or argue against the issues rased in the opening message to this thread, or I will request that the moderators censure you.
If all you can do is post taunts, you have lost. And clearly, you can do no other because you obviously do not even understand the arguments.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Ten-sai, posted 11-21-2002 9:56 PM Ten-sai has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 191 (23878)
11-23-2002 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by TrueCreation
11-21-2002 10:47 PM


Once again Truecreation, who swore he would not post here again, posts here *again* and fails *yet again* to address even one topic in the *original message in this thread*!
For the congentially self-worshipping, this thread is not about Truecreation's apparent need for god-like recognition and adoration, it is about the remarks Christopher Bohar made to me, which I answered in a thread aimed, by its very title, at Christopher Bohar. Why is this so hard for creationists to grasp?
Now if you are not Christopher Bohar, and are not interested in pursuing the topics raised *in the opening message in this thread* why on Earth would you come in here except to stir up trouble? And when you have been repeatedly redirected back to topic, why would you repeatedly stray off it to pursue nothing more than self-aggrandising oratory?
Is this a Christian behavior? Actually I could argue that it is, but that's another issue.
Once again, and please read this carefully: Anyone coming into this thread needs to address the issues which began this thread, not the topic of their choice. Consistent failure to do this is a de facto admission by creationists that they cannot support their faith. In view of the (lack of) argument presented here, it would seem that this thread is effectively done with, and the creationists lost.
To address the topic of their choice, creationists need to open their own thread, and make their own case, whereupon others can come and argue that case in that thread. It is really quite simple, and it is embarrassing that creationists, who arrogantly, and without foundation, claim to have overthrown evolution, cannot seem to grasp a concept as basic as this.
By the way, it makes no sense at all to open your own thread and then beg others to start it off. This, too, is an admission that you have no case to make. Nor is it smart to dismisses supportive evidence submitted by the other side and then turn around and allow that their throwing in the occasional geology textbook is admissible.
Truecreation: "I'm not here to knock down my opponents, I am here to work with them."
LoL! If that were truly the case, you would be writing science papers and publishing them in peer-reviewed journals instead of posting in this trivial medium.
Truecreation: "If I am not mistaken I have already explained why I didn't respond to your initial post and your list of 'challenges'."
So you came in to this thread for the sole purpose of explaining why you were not going to deal with the issues in this thread?
A Truecreation 'stretcher': "Mainly because they were references to Borger."
Clearly the truth would seem to disagree with you. I have repeatedly responded directly to you. I have repeatedly made challenges directly to you, including offering you the opportunity to state your case/make your best argument, which you have consistently failed to do. I have repeatedly requested directly of you that you either deal with the issues raised in this thread or stay out of it. Your transparent attempt to blame this all on Borger is nothing but a straw man.
Truecreation: "Another is because I am not the biologist, but a geologist at heart,"
Then stay out of the biology threads. Duh! It obviously has not occurred to you, but evolution is largely biology at heart.
Truecreation: "The depth of the delve is most likely not going to wait up for my intellect."
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If you cannot follow simple rules, and instructions that are *repeatedly* given to you, then what does this speak of your intellect?
Truecreation: "Also, I am not going to argue with anyone particularly scriptural, or religious implications,"
Creation is religion, period. You cannot separate the two, although creationists deceitfully and repeatedly try. This is why I raised the issue of proofs of Jesus' existence. My point (for those taunting windbags who missed it) was that creationists are trying to claim there is no support for a science that has far more support than does the foundation of their own religion.
Truecreation: "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."
I did not resent anyone being here, I objected, as I made repeatedly clear to everyone, O Intellectual One, that I wanted to keep the creationists focused on the topic. I fully understand how hard this is for creationists, because this requires that they address hard issues and make intelligent arguments, two things which highlight their weakest positions. However, I am adamant on this. I let Fred Williams get away with far too much in our debate and I will not do that again.
Truecreation: "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?"
What's wrong with your thread is that you opened it by asking me to start it. If you want to debate a topic (or "discuss" if debate is too strong for you, then **you** **need** **to** **make** **an** **opening** **argument** by stating your case. If there is any way at all I can make this intellectually more clear, then do, please, let me know.
I am not your puppy, I am not going to be lead by the nose, I am not going to be the dog in your pony show. If you want to establish creation, then you need to establish creation, not invite those who support evolution to establish it for you by attempting to prove a negative. This, of course, brings us right back to the offer I made to you long ago: make your ten best (or even your one best) for creation and let's "discuss" those.
Since you cannot do this and are evidentially and admittedly not prepared to address the issues raised in this thread's foundation, then please, do us a favor: stay out of it and quit wasting people's time.
Clearly it escaped your intellect, but the references I posted in the other thread were to support my argument that science has already made its case for evolution and that creationists need to do likewise for their own case, otherwise, creation loses and there is nothing to discuss. From all available evidence, you, apparently, are unable to make a case.
[Rest of self-serving and irrelevant trivia snipped]
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by TrueCreation, posted 11-21-2002 10:47 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 11:52 AM Budikka has replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 191 (23880)
11-23-2002 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by peter borger
11-21-2002 11:20 PM


This issue is that you have failed to define "kind".
Are you claiming that your circular reasoning was an adequate definition? If this is so, then I win, because I am going to define creation as that which creates nothing.
And please try to deal with the questions asked of you instead of seeking to deflect them and escape them by throwing out meaningless, farcical adolescent counter-questions. Questions are not answered with questions but with answers. Now, simple question:
Will you define "kind" in a non-circular way or will you admit to being unable to define "kind"?
Borger: "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."
One reference:
The Evolution of Improved Fitness
In which this line appears;
"Gene duplication, mutation and selection are all known to occur due to natural biochemical processes in a variety of organisms studied in the laboratory"
Now can we take that as read and get on with your answering the questions - and by 'answering' I mean adequately, non-cicularly, with answers, not questions.
I am sorry that your simplistic, thoughtless and egotistically self-serving view of life is not supported by the facts, but there it is. Now please, before you offer me any more instruction in the thread that I began, either deal with the issues in this thread, answer the challenges, adequately, **or quit posting here**
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by peter borger, posted 11-21-2002 11:20 PM peter borger has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 191 (23887)
11-23-2002 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Fred Williams
11-22-2002 6:10 PM


once again we hear from he who has no arguments.
Have you noticed how often blind believers claim the mountains of evidence for Jesus existence, yet nowhere do we see it? And once again, hypocritical Williams, who arrogantly demands page numbers from others, while ignoring the indexes of books cited to him, offers not single thing to bolster his wild claims, but unsupported appeals to authority, unsupported appeals to majority, and some blabbering by "evangelists".
We do not know for a fact of anyone who wrote the New Testament. There is some evidence that a "Paul" may have written some of the epistles attributed to him, but we have no idea who wrote the gospels.
The epistles are the earliest of the writings, yet nowhere is there any real indication from "Paul" that there ever was a real person called Jesus.
Everything attributed to Jesus is from pre-existing legend, such as the stories of Mithra, Adonis, Buddha, and so on. All the details, from the virgin birth, the mother's name, the visitation by shepherds and wise men, the crucifixion with thieves, and the resurrection are all stolen from earlier mythology. The fact that people believed the mythology back then and wrote about it proves nothing.
Paul admits that he never met any such person. He was the one who "invented" Christianity. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus. Apart from a couple of bad interpolations and some misunderstood quotes, there is no independent evidence or artifacts whatsoever to demonstrate that there was a real Jesus.
Here in this thread I asked for evidence of Jesus' existence and we have seen none. (I don't count Borger's interpolated Jospehus or his bone box, which could have been anyone's, including a forgery).
So here we have Fred Am-I-Hypocritical-Or-What Williams insisting that evolution, which literally does have mountains of evidence, is nothing but a fairytale, then he turns right around and champions this "Jesus" character who has no supportive evidence whatsoever. Can you say "Clueless"?!
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Fred Williams, posted 11-22-2002 6:10 PM Fred Williams 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