Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
1. Failure to scientifically define "kind".

​

My solution:

​

Kind = any group of organisms with compatible DNA that is able to produce offspring through mixture --either natural or artificial-- of their DNA.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

Please define "compatible".What about 'obviously' related creatures that do not hybribize? Do the offspring have to be fertile?You mention that if they can produce offsprinmg via 'artificial' means - what does this mean? Would genetic engineering count?

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....

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
It is an 'ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM', an argument from authority. Well, Futuyama is no authority to me. (Who on earth is Futuyma? Your God? ). In other words it is no argument. Listen, Mammuthus, I am perfectly able to think and to see through such arguments. I already gave you guys THE definition of evolutionism, so don't confuse it again with population genetics.

---

For the interested reader, 'ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM' is not an argument from authority. It is the argument of pseudoauthority, such as claiming that because so-and-so is an expert molecular biologist, he is also an expert evolutionary biologst. THAT is the fallacy.Of interest, however, is the way in whihc the megalomaniacal creationist actually engages in the very fallacious argumentation that he accuses others of doing! Futuyma IS an authroity on evolutonary biology, Borger is not, yet Borger wants the reader to believe that HE is the ultimate authority on all matters related to evoluton.Never mind that he has claimed - and been unable to support (because there IS NO support) - that conserved sequences in introns falsifies the neutral theory.I could list several other such idiotic blunders, but that one alone should erase any doubts as to whether or not Borger is competent - much less an authority - on any aspect of evolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dr Page, and others,

​

Page says:
For the interested reader, 'ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM' is not an argument from authority. It is the argument of pseudoauthority, such as claiming that because so-and-so is an expert molecular biologist, he is also an expert evolutionary biologst. THAT is the fallacy.

​

I say:
For the interested reader: Dr PAge is mixing things up (as he and other evolutionists tried before). An 'argumentum ad verecundiam' is a PSEUDOargument from authority. It is the opinion of an expert, and the opinion is taken as argument. Even Dirty Harry knows that "opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one". Therefore, it is a pseudoargument, in other words a FALLACY.
Better face the facts: evolutionism has fallen! No strawman/fallacy can do anything about it.

---

Shame Borger deleted this section of the post he responds to above, emphasis mine:"Of interest, however, is the way in which the megalomaniacal creationist actually engages in the very fallacious argumentation that he accuses others of doing! Futuyma IS an authroity on evolutonary biology, Borger is not, yet Borger wants the reader to believe that HE is the ultimate authority on all matters related to evoluton.Never mind that he has claimed - and been unable to support (because there IS NO support) - that conserved sequences in introns falsifies the neutral theory.I could list several other such idiotic blunders, but that one alone should erase any doubts as to whether or not Borger is competent - much less an authority - on any aspect of evolution."Amazing how much hypocrisy and projection the creationist engages in.