Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

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

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

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 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

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

over the last two days, I received fifteen email notifications that a response had been posted to this thread. I looked at every one of those responses, and only one of them really had anything at all to do with the moving original topic upon which this thread was founded. Even that one was a waste of time, since it ineffectually danced around a topic that ought to have been resolved long ago.I would like to argue, therefore, that this thread is dead and move that it be closed, archived, whatever. What do I need to do to get this done?Budikka

over the last two days, I received fifteen email notifications that a response had been posted to this thread. I looked at every one of those responses, and only one of them really had anything at all to do with the moving original topic upon which this thread was founded. Even that one was a waste of time, since it ineffectually danced around a topic that ought to have been resolved long ago.I would like to argue, therefore, that this thread is dead and move that it be closed, archived, whatever. What do I need to do to get this done?Budikka

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*!Truecreation: "Did you even bother to read my post?"Hello! I replied to it point by point, so clearly you failed to read mine before you posted yet again with blabber that has **nothing to do with the opening message in this thread**.Truecreation: "I've dealt with evo's as ignorant as yourself but just a bit more unintelligent, when they come in here and get smacked in the face. I don't shout that the evo's have lost."And yet this creation superhero cannot offer even a single argument - not a single one - to support his case and related to the opening topics **in this thread**. How pathetic.Truecreation: "I've already done this repetitively! Though you seem to have no interest and tediously attempt to sound smart by telling me that I'm a pathetic creationist ignoramus without intelligence and playing the pre-teen game"That's exactly what you are doing - trying to get me to play your game by your creationist rules, and I will not. Too bad for you! Now either deal with the issues in this thread or get out of it and quit whining like a whipped puppy that you cannot have it all your own way. Please confine your whining to your own thread.[The middle portion of this message has been replied to in Truecreation's flood thread
EvC Forum: Buddika & TrueCreation's Flood Topic]Truecreation: "Actually, the majority of the text you decided was irrelevant, are (sic) the points which are the only ones which are (sic), that is, they are the points I have needed to reiterate to you successively. (sic)"Can anyone understand this? I gave up on it after the second "which are".Budikka

10 Sighs: "Buddika, you wouldn’t know what evidence was if it hit you in the face."I don't see how you can even make this statement given that you have yet to present a single shred of it, and have yet to make even one argument on the issues raised in the opening message of this thread. Clearly the lack of understanding of evidence is all on your side of the equation.I pity the client who has you to defend them - your entire case would consist of insulting plaintiff's counsel. And you would lose.10 Sighs: "Personally, I haven’t posted b/c you people bore me."And yet you who uses college level abbreviations cannot wait to get back in here and throw out more taunts and insults! What a pathetic, vacuous, worthless, sad, miserable, useless, hopeless life you must lead. You must definitely be a lawyer.And what a sad comment on the creationists. Despite all their reams of writing in this thread, we have not had a single useful argument presented against evolution, but we have had taunt and insult galore. Does this sum up the creationist case or what?10 Sighs: "I’ve had this debate with laymen like yourselves many times and I just guess you can say the recurring and consistent ignorant replies have become tiresome."Yeah, I really believe you. Why don't you offer some references so we can go check out your form? Or is this nothing but more muted echoes from the empty, dry dusty vaults of the cramped creationist armory?10 Sighs: "I am a lawyer. A trial lawyer. I happen to know something about rules of evidence, of which science sadly has none and you lost souls obviously know nothing about."I am surprised you haven't been swinging your Johnson around, but then Philip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial" has been adequately dealt with by several commentators:
http://www.ncseweb.org/...secuted_review_of_j_12_15_1993.asp
Critiques of Phillip JohnsonClearly you are as clueless as he was about the way science works. Science is not a court room, nor is it a democracy. Deal with it.10 Sighs: "I crush your shifty semantics game every time with the logic of evidence."And yet you still cannot offer any here. How pathetic!10 Sighs: "But this time I just don’t have the energy to engage a lesson under the Socratic Method which would take 5-10 pages of discourse to accomplish."Another creationist who expects to overturn 140 years of science by divine fiat. I guess this is what you get from the Bible - the erroneous belief that you can create everything with only a word.10 Sighs: "I know it to be true you are ignorant of the meaning of evidence."Clearly you are the one who is ignorant, since you think evidence consists of cheap taunts and unsupported blabber. Ever win a case? Ever prosecute one? Yeah right! If you ever graduate from evening class law school, let us know.10 Sighs: "I don’t have much time for the self-righteously ignorant. Sorry."Yet you have time to post endless taunts and insults and sign them "Peace". I know you have no faith in dictionaries, but please, do the world a favor and look up the word "hypocrite".10 Sighs: "I have decided to no longer give pro bono classes on Evidence 101."That must be a source of never-ending relief to all those who had to suffer your company.10 Sighs: "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."Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!That was a good one. Do, please, tell us some more of your hilarious jokes.10 Sighs: "The unfounded closely held belief that abiogenesis and evolution are somehow irrelevant to each other is textbook illogical (sic)"Yet *another* creationist who insists on redefining evolution just so's he has a better chance of scoring a point.10 Sighs: "Believe in the erroneous if you want, but it proves beyond reasonable doubt you are not an evidence and logic expert."Evolution is, simply, the change in allele frequency in a population, Period. That's all there is to it. Abiogensis refers to living organisms arising from chemical precursors.They are two different things.That's why they have two different names, you bozo. Get it now?10 sighs: "I am. Peace, Ten-sai"You are a piece of work, that's for sure, but please, since you pay rate is so high and your time so very limited (not to mention your brain cells) do not post anything else in this thread unless it has to do directly with supporting or refuting the material posted in the opening message in this thread. If there is any way, any way at all that I can make this any more crystal clear even to your limited perceptions, please do not hesitate to ask. There is no effort I will not spare to educate the chronically clueless, the incredibly ignorant and the overly obnoxious.Budikka

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

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

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

Once again Borger proves what an incompetent and impotent creationist he is. Instead of dealing with the issues which he has consistently and repeatedly failed to deal with he (typically for a creationist), ignores his shortcomings, and turns around and throws out another insult.Is anyone able to glean from this why I detest creationists and will not cut them any slack? Does this help anyone at all to understand my attitude towards them? It's because for three years I have been dealing on an almost daily basis with the same impotence, incompetence and insults from assorted creationists that is so beautifully demonstrated in this one message from Borger.I don't want to see another person in this thread attempt to lecture me about attitude when we see quite clearly here what a bunch of time-wasting lame-brains I have to deal with to do my part in keeping the world safe from tunnel-visioned fanatics who would try to brainwash my children with their pathetic mythology.Budikka

Borger: "I already noticed that you don't have a clue about contemporary biology."Another unsupported assertion flying in the face of massive evidence in other threads that it is Borger who doesn't have a clue. This is a fine accusation to make from someone who demonstrably doesn't even know what evolution is, let alone what it is called.Borger: "2) If a reference is in German it isn't irrelevant."No, if you are not dealing with the issues raised in the opening message of this thread, **it isn't relevant**. Can you grasp that, Borger?Borger: "This one was relevant since it demonstrated that all stonecorals are one (or at most a few) kind(s)."So what? First of all you have yet to define "kind". In the absence of such a definition, how can you even begin to claim anything about "kinds"?!!Secondly, I have seen assertion after assertion after assertion from you and not a single one of them have you even begun to demonstrate how your wild claims overthrow the Theory of Evolution.And none of this is relevant until and unless you competently answer the first two challenges. Please deal with that **first**.Borger: "I already explained to you how linguistics work."Yep, you sure did. What you say goes and the hell with the rest of the world. I understand how you work, don't worry.I note that once again you duck the issue of proving references - in this case with regard to the use of the word "evolutionism". So here we have yet another instance of Borger asserting something is so and providing not a shred of support for it other than his own whacky opinion.Borger: "Apparently you don't know what these words mean."Apparently neither do you since you ducked the question (again).Borger: "Listen, Mr Buddika, it is the biggest evolutionist's fallacy to present population genetics as evolution."We've already been through this. Wake me up if you ever have anything new or relevant to say.Borger: "You may be able to fool the public, you don't fool me."Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You're hilarious! Tell me another one.Borger: "In other words Buddika says: "I am unable to discuss the topic of evolutionism at a scientific and contemporary level". To bad, Buddika, I am and I addressed both items in a scientific way, so the ball is in your court."Liar! You have not defined "kind" despite tiresomely repeated requests. You yourself have admitted more than once that the definition you gave was circular. Once again, if it is science you wish to address, then please give a ****scientific**** definition of "kind" that does not explain itself in terms of itself. If your next response does not address this, I will take this as a public admission that you cannot answer the question.You have not defined the mechanism that prevents one "kind" from evolving into another. What you defined was a possible mechanism which tends to keep species distinct. Since speciation is a fact, this quite clearly cannto be the mechanism which prevents one "kind" evolving into another "kind", ergo the response you gave fails.I have pointed this out to you - repeatedly - and I have repeatedly asked you for a scientific defintion. I am still waiting. If your next response does not answer this challenge, I will take this as a public admission that you cannot answer the question.Quite clearly from the evidence of your own incompetence, it is ****you**** who is unable to deal with the issues raised **in this thread**, so either answer the challenges, give the definitions **or finally have the common decency to admit that you cannot answer these questions.Borger: "I am still waiting for your references."References for what? For 140 years of evidence supporting evolution?Borger: "Probably you don't have the guts to discuss evolutionism in detail. It is always the same, and I am used to it."If and when you can bring your clueless self to actually answer a few simple questions **that are essential to any further discussion**, then we could proceed, but so far you have proven nothing but your own massive ignorance and comprehensive inability to answer two simple questions.Much as this will depress you, this thread is not about you, Borger, nor is it about your whacky beliefs or your bizarre dreams of grandeur. This thread is about the Bohar debate challenge and my response to him. If you cannot deal with those issues, you should not be here. This thread is going no further with you until you get your butt in the chair and do the work.Please do let me know if there is any way at all I can simplify this ever further until even you can grasp it.Budikka