Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 191 (24108)
11-24-2002 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by TrueCreation
11-23-2002 1:54 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*!
Once again I say: If you are not addressing the issues in the original opening message in this thread, do *not* post in this thread, not even to repeatedly say that you are not addressing the topics in this thread. Everyone is painfully aware of your complete inability to answer the issues raised in this thread. You do not need to keep endlessly posting here to explain away your incompetence.
Truecreation: "I've repeated why I'm not responding to your 'challenges' in the openning (sic) post of this thread."
Yes, you have, endlessly, and I am not the slightest bit interested in your whining on this topic. The issue that I have repeatedly raised has nothing to do with your unwillingness to be embarassed by your inability to argue anything in this thread, but the fact of your continued posting in this thread even though you are doing nothing lately, but whining that I won't play your game to your rules in a completely different thread.
If there is any way I can make this even a teensy bit more blantantly obvious to you, then please do let me know. There is nothing I enjoy more than continually repeating the same thing to the same person in the desperately forlorn hope that they might, some day, some how, miraculously get the message. I have been doing this with creationists for years.
Truecreation: "What I deem relevant now is your continuous ridiculous excuses not to join my geology threads. And if you don't want me to post here, don't ask me by replying to my messages."
More whining. Oh how awful for you that I won't come and play with you. How tragic that your life is so completely and irreparably shattered that I won't play your game to your rules on your terms in your time - rules that I had nothing to do with making and was never consulted upon.
Do you hear me whining endlessly in other threads that Christopher Bohar won't come and debate in this thread? No! I dealt with him in the first message and have not mentioned him since except to point out to people why this thread exists and to make occasional mention of his absence, given that it was he who challenged me to debate in the first place.
Instead of whining about his absence, I have dedicatedly dealt with everyone else who came in here, even though the two main creationist contributors, you and Borger, have comprehensively failed to stay on topic and seriously deal with the issues I raised. So who is really moving and shaking here, and who is whining?
What are you going to do now? Run off home with a snotty nose and take your ball with you? How catastrophic that I won't roll over and play dead and let you do exactly what you want with me. What a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. Boo Hoo Hoo! How will you ever go on with your life?
So what about this for irony: Truecreation posts **yet another whine** in this thread about my repeated requests that he either deal with the issues or stay out of the thread, but as part of that whine, he accuses me of doing the same thing he is doing: refusing to take part in a thread!
The irony is delicious. Except that I have posted only twice in his thread, both times precisely on topic, dealing directly with the issues he has raised, patiently explaining in lucid detail what the problems are, and why I cannot, therefore, take part in his thread and here he is, despite repeated requests to stay out, posting endlessly in this thread, not dealing with a single issue that the thread relates to, and whining that I won't deal with his issues in the other thread! How deep an hypocrisy is this? So who is really playing to rules and who is endlessly whining here?
Tell me, does one have to take a course to be this illogical, or is it a gift?
Truecreation: "These aren't creationist rules, they are methods which have been agreed upon by many in this forum"
The method that needs to be agreed upon is the rules for debate between those who wish to take part in a given debate.
Not **once** have you ever asked me (or got my agreement) to take part in a one-on-one debate with you on a specific topic in a special thread, nor have you **ever** had the courtesy to ask if I agree to the method that you set up. Yet you went ahead and opened a thread set up to your own specification with your own rules, and now you are whining that I won't take part. Please do enlighten me: which part of "get a clue" is it that you don't grasp?
Are you now arguing that the method agreed upon by "many in this forum" is for someone to open a thread and demand that someone else start it by proving a negative - someone who has not been involved in any way, shape, or form in determining the topic of debate or the method by which it will be addressed? Right, sure, yeah, dream on. Believe what you want. You are a creationist, why would a simple thing like logic or fact intrude upon your rosy little world?
You can set up a billion threads on a billion topics, but unless you get the agreement of the person you wish to debate, you have no one to blame but yourself for that person's refusal you take part. Period.
Finally Truecreation seems to be getting the message: "Since you continue to maintain your pathetic assertions against me in your previous posts despite the fact that they are horribly flawed, I don't think that there will be benefit to continuing in response to your ramblings."
**THEN STOP POSTING HERE** Duh! How many messages has it now taken to drag you kicking and screaming, whining and blubbering to this point?
Once again, I have addressed the problems in the other thread **in the other thread**. Once again, I have made it explicitly clear to all but the most congenitally brain dead that I will not play your games **and why**. Once again, **in the other thread**, I have explained to you in enough detail for a high school kid to grasp that I am not going to jump through your hoops (regardless of what semantics you use to pretend they are something else). If you don't like it, too bad! Get over it.
I have patiently explained more than once the rules under which I **will**debate you, and I even let you have the choice of topic. But once again, **you** need to make your best case first. If you cannot meet these terms, then I guess it sucks to be you, doesn't it?
BTW, you are wrong on the loon. That's a bird, I am a mammal. These creationists, I tell you....
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by TrueCreation, posted 11-23-2002 1:54 PM TrueCreation has not replied

peter borger
Member (Idle past 7664 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 152 of 191 (24141)
11-25-2002 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Budikka
10-19-2002 9:31 PM


Dear Buddika,
Buddika's failure #7:
Buddika says:
Failure to refute the evidence that we are closer, genetically, to chimps, than Indian and African elephants are to each other, than two species of vireo bird (red and white) are to each other, than two species of camel are to each other.
I say:
Before I will address this one I like to have the papers where this is demonstrated, so I can study the assertions in detail. If it is based on cytochrome c or mtDNA I can easily refute this one, so please provide the references.
best wishes,
peter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Budikka, posted 10-19-2002 9:31 PM Budikka has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Mammuthus, posted 11-25-2002 3:21 AM peter borger has not replied
 Message 164 by Budikka, posted 11-25-2002 12:25 PM peter borger has not replied

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


Message 153 of 191 (24157)
11-25-2002 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by peter borger
11-25-2002 12:18 AM


quote:
Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Buddika,
Buddika's failure #7:
Buddika says:
Failure to refute the evidence that we are closer, genetically, to chimps, than Indian and African elephants are to each other, than two species of vireo bird (red and white) are to each other, than two species of camel are to each other.
I say:
Before I will address this one I like to have the papers where this is demonstrated, so I can study the assertions in detail. If it is based on cytochrome c or mtDNA I can easily refute this one, so please provide the references.
best wishes,
peter

******************
You could also start with SLPx alignment and demonstrate non-random mutation..or can't you?
I see you are still pedalling your nonesense that we are as closely related to land snails as to primates..LOL!
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 11-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by peter borger, posted 11-25-2002 12:18 AM peter borger has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 154 of 191 (24160)
11-25-2002 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Ten-sai
11-24-2002 3:48 PM


Ten-sai,
You spent a long time giving absolutely no answer. I repeat, what rules of evidence? You claim to be "familiar" with them, please be specific.
quote:
Next,you give us this tacit (edited) admission of utter ignorance:
And whos rules of evidence would they be, the Federal rules of evidence? If so, should they be applicable to science?
Well of course I'm ignorant, logic boy, I wouldn't be asking a question about something I already know, would I? Only lawyers do that......
Please answer the question. Here it is again, to give you the same question to avoid twice in your next post:What rules of evidence are you familiar with?
[added by edit] Could you also define "evidence", please.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Ten-sai, posted 11-24-2002 3:48 PM Ten-sai has not replied

monkenstick
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 191 (24179)
11-25-2002 6:47 AM


why are you using the word layperson so much ten sai, you do realise that some of the people on here are actually scientists with PhD's? Seeing as this is a science forum, aren't you the layperson?

Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 156 of 191 (24183)
11-25-2002 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by peter borger
11-11-2002 5:11 PM


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

I have read this reply before, I don't think it fully answers
what I asked, but I think I see what YOU mean by redundant.
If a gene (or whatever is the most approriate terminology)
does not have an effect on survival or sexual selection,
why is it's existence in the genome a refutation of NDT?
Do we first have to rule out the possibility that it was of
benefit at some time in the past, and is a 'hang-over'?
What about if the gene exists on the same chromosome as a
'selected for' expressed trait? e.g. 'furry eyebrow gene' only
ever showed up on the same chromosome as 'really fast runner'
and these critters got chased a lot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by peter borger, posted 11-11-2002 5:11 PM peter borger has not replied

Ten-sai
Guest


Message 157 of 191 (24186)
11-25-2002 7:51 AM


Hi Mark,
quote:
Here it is again, to give you the same question to avoid twice in your next post:What rules of evidence are you familiar with?
Any of the rules of evidence you happen to be familiar with Mark. Since you are "familiar" with none (I prefer the phrase "an expert with none"), you ask a meaningless question. So how about we use the scientific rules of evidence instead? You must be familiar with those golden axioms of logic.
quote:
Could you also define "evidence", please.
That was my question precisely, and answered quite unsatisfactorily I might add. The reason I asked in the first place was because you laypeople throw around that term and deceive others into buying into most of your garbage so-so mounds of "evidence" arguments. Truth be told, you are ignorant of which you speak. My job was to clearly point that out.
Are you a lawyer too Mark? Because only a layperson would argue like this (get upset) about evidence. Go hunt down a lawyer and bring him on board, then I will be able to carry on an intelligent conversation without all the insecure emotional baggage piled on. Maybe you will learn something.
Hi Monkenschtick,
A Ph.D. pontificating on the rules of evidence, by definition, is a lay opinion, unless that Ph.D. also happens to be a Doctor of Jurisprudence, although the latter wouldn't argue about evidence. The Ph.D., then, is out of his/her field and in lay territory, just as if the same were to opine on the subject matter within the expertise of an MD.
So as far as evidence goes, I am the expert because I've earned a Doctorate of Jurisprudence. Everyone else is a layperson (yes, even the lofty Ph.D). This dispute can be easily and successfully arbitrated, however; no longer use the term "evidence" in your discussions and you've seen the last of me.
Peace,
Ten-sai

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Quetzal, posted 11-25-2002 8:26 AM You have not replied
 Message 159 by Mammuthus, posted 11-25-2002 8:55 AM You have not replied
 Message 160 by Mammuthus, posted 11-25-2002 8:56 AM You have not replied
 Message 162 by mark24, posted 11-25-2002 10:13 AM You have not replied
 Message 163 by Mammuthus, posted 11-25-2002 10:55 AM You have not replied

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


Message 158 of 191 (24189)
11-25-2002 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Ten-sai
11-25-2002 7:51 AM


Ten-sai: Are you actually here to discuss something? If so, please get on with it. Or are you merely indulging some pathetic childish propensity for insult? If this is the case, please continue. It's quite amusing - especially given your self-proclaimed invincible superiority. Maybe you could try addressing Budikka's first two question in post #1 of this thread. I'd love to see a lawyer argue for the existence of kreated kinds. Feel free to use whatever standards of evidence you deem appropriate - you are, after your own words, the only expert in evidence on the forum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Ten-sai, posted 11-25-2002 7:51 AM Ten-sai has not replied

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


Message 159 of 191 (24194)
11-25-2002 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Ten-sai
11-25-2002 7:51 AM


A Ph.D. pontificating on the rules of evidence, by definition, is a lay opinion, unless that Ph.D. also happens to be a Doctor of Jurisprudence, although the latter wouldn't argue about evidence. The Ph.D., then, is out of his/her field and in lay territory, just as if the same were to opine on the subject matter within the expertise of an MD.
M: A lawyer pontificating on the rules of science or evolution is by definition a lay person unless that lawyer also happens to have a Ph.D. in molecular biology and has specialized in the study of molecular evolution. The lawyer is out of his/her field and in lay territory i.e. your opinions are irrelevant.
You are also a liar
your quote:
"I have decided to no longer give pro bono classes on Evidence 101. Since educating the ignorant like yourselves has lost its appeal, I must now to insist on being compensated for my time. My rate is $175/hr.
Here is a freebie for you guys though before I leave the building:"
For someone who has "left the building" you sure have been posting lots of follow ups with zero content.
T:
This dispute can be easily and successfully arbitrated, however; no longer use the term "evidence" in your discussions and you've seen the last of me.
M: The last of you until the next time I guess...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Ten-sai, posted 11-25-2002 7:51 AM Ten-sai has not replied

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


Message 160 of 191 (24195)
11-25-2002 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Ten-sai
11-25-2002 7:51 AM


deleted due to duplicatio
[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 11-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Ten-sai, posted 11-25-2002 7:51 AM Ten-sai has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1875 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 161 of 191 (24198)
11-25-2002 9:06 AM


This is a new twist - arguing about what 'evidence' actually is. I encountered a dimbulb on a board out of Florida (where else) who ranted and raved about there being no "evidence" for evolution at all because the "evidence" presented did not meet this idiot's "legal" definition if evidence.
He blabbered about the Daubert test and all this. I checked out Daubert (the ruling and interpretation by legal scholars is available online), and found that not only does the evidence for evolutiion count as evidence, but that one criterion in Daubert - evidence is something presented by a recognized authority - actually hurts the cretin cause.
But, as we all know, creationists are like pit bulls. Once they latch onto something, they refuse to let go. The moron on the Florida board did this. Williams does this. Borger does this. Behe and pals have done this. ReMine especially makes an art of this (still uses the Maynard-Smith estimate of gene number in humans).
Looks like this Tensile is going to do it, too.
Glad I did not get involved....

mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 162 of 191 (24212)
11-25-2002 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Ten-sai
11-25-2002 7:51 AM


Ten-sai,
quote:
Any of the rules of evidence you happen to be familiar with Mark. Since you are "familiar" with none (I prefer the phrase "an expert with none"), you ask a meaningless question. So how about we use the scientific rules of evidence instead? You must be familiar with those golden axioms of logic.
YOU claimed to be familiar with rules of evidence. Now, for the third time of asking, WHICH ONE? Name it. Why so coy?
quote:
Mark:
Could you also define "evidence", please.
quote:
Ten-sai:
That was my question precisely, and answered quite unsatisfactorily I might add. The reason I asked in the first place was because you laypeople throw around that term and deceive others into buying into most of your garbage so-so mounds of "evidence" arguments. Truth be told, you are ignorant of which you speak. My job was to clearly point that out.
Would this definition be getting close? The definition of evidence are the rules themselves which memorialize the concept. If not, could you give your definition, please.
quote:
Are you a lawyer too Mark? Because only a layperson would argue like this (get upset) about evidence.
I’m not upset about it, YOU brought it up, not me. Seems to me you’re the uptight one here, mate.
Also, when responding to a post, if you click reply at the bottom of that message, it gives the author, (& you) a cue as to whom has responded. It’s just easier to keep track of what’s going on for all concerned.
Thanks,
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Ten-sai, posted 11-25-2002 7:51 AM Ten-sai has not replied

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


Message 163 of 191 (24218)
11-25-2002 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Ten-sai
11-25-2002 7:51 AM


And since Mr. Layman Laywer is so into definitions
Page not found – Home Staging
Definition: a natural calamity (disaster)
Pronunciation: ten sai
The definition fits..at least for the legal profession...or for whoever paid his way through law school.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Ten-sai, posted 11-25-2002 7:51 AM Ten-sai has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 191 (24227)
11-25-2002 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by peter borger
11-25-2002 12:18 AM


I am not going to deal with any of your responses until you resolve the unanswered issues regarding challenges 1 & 2 - the definition of "kind" and the definition of the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from transforming into another "kind" - or admit that you cannot answer these two challenges.
I have patiently explained this to you several times. I am sorry that you apparently lack the wherewithall to grasp the situation, but that is your problem, not mine.
Once more, for the godawfully stupid: Competently answer the first two challenges regarding "kind" or your messages to this thread will be completely disregarded from this point on, and you will have lost. period.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by peter borger, posted 11-25-2002 12:18 AM peter borger has not replied

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 165 of 191 (24238)
11-25-2002 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by peter borger
11-13-2002 6:33 PM


Excuse me but this is an English thread - foreign languages are irrelevant here.
Excuse me, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with contemporary biology, but with English.
Excuse me but the only place I have ever seen the word "evolutionism" used is in blather written by creationists, who are the last people on the planet to have a clue about biology past or present, even if it were relevant to this particular topic.
Now do you want to quote me valid (i.e. non-creationist)references were you have seen "evolutionism" used or where it is defined?
BTW, the topic here is actually evolution (that is the change in allele frequency in a population and more specifically, the topics raised in the very first message in this thread), not "evolutionism" even if there is such a word, so please, let's get your topics straight, shall we?
Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot - you don't even know what the topic is since you are comprehensively unable to address it. The topic is "kinds" - (is any of this coming back to you now?) and it will stay that way until you adress challenges 1 and 2 competently and without equivocation and without circular argument and without defining species and pretending that this addresses the mechanism which prevents one **kind** from evolving into another **kind**.
Please do let me know if I can make this any more clear at all, because I enjoy nothing more than repeating the same simple but unheeded instructions for the benefit of the fundamentally incompetent.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by peter borger, posted 11-13-2002 6:33 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by peter borger, posted 11-25-2002 11:28 PM Budikka has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024