Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

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 matterand based on evidencescientific 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 hypothesesNow 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

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?

T:
Personally, I haven’t posted b/c you people bore me.M: Strange that someone so bored would bother to register and post.t:
The Dr. Highbrow attitude, quite frankly, has grown old. 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.M: laymen? As opposed to what you are?...and I see you prefer the Dr. Lowbrow approach.T:
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.M: your poor clients...if you are as incompetent at debating here as you are professionally it is hard to imagine you ever defending or prosecuting a case successfully...T:
I crush your shifty semantics game every time with the logic of evidence. 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.M: How convenient...and cowardly.T:
I know it to be true you are ignorant of the meaning of evidence. I don’t say this under pretext of insult, although you are sure to take it as such.M: Don't be insulted then when I tell you that you have no clue how science works.T:
Anytime someone quotes Webster’s dictionary for the meaning of evidence is clearly ignorant. Obviously the first time the word was looked up. I mean, why trifle with the trivial thing? I don’t have much time for the self-righteously ignorant. Sorry.M: Interesting, you waved away the scientific method and even a dictionary definition of evidence and claim we are ignorant...so you obviously have some unique definition that would have appeared in this tome you were planning to post but were to bored to bother?T:
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.M: You should spend your earnings on actually getting an education.T:
Here is a freebie for you guys though before I leave the building:M: You know it must be important when a creationist lawyer arguing against evolution starts out with the above sentence T:
The unfounded closely held belief that abiogenesis and evolution are somehow irrelevant to each other is textbook illogical (perhaps this is why authoritative peer reviewed discussions on the logical irrelevance of abiogenesis to evolution are consistently and suspiciously absent from the journals). Believe in the erroneous if you want, but it proves beyond reasonable doubt you are not an evidence and logic expert.M: Oh what a compelling argument there Supreme Court Justice Moronicus Maximus....wow...don"t know about the rest of the people on the board but it is all clear...a worldwide scientific and scientific publishing conspiracy to exclude creationist literature...wow...LOL!!! T:
I am.M: The evidence is sorely lacking...we the jury find you guilty of stupidity...your sentence is to walk around ignorantly ranting and spouting off about subjects you know nothing about...however, you will recieve no credit for the time you have already served doing just that

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]

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...

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

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

PB:
Listen, Mr Buddika, it is the biggest evolutionist's fallacy to present population genetics as evolution. I know all about evolutionism and I know all about population genetics. They are not equivalent. I also know that you and Mammuthus and Dr Page present it as evolutionism and that is how you guys keep up the appearance of evolutionism. It is deception. You may be able to fool the public, you don't fool me.M: Poor Peter...YOU have to improperly define evolution to have any chance of arguing against it..it is really very laughable. YOU know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about evolution or population genetics contrary to your blathering in your post. You have demonstrated repeatedly that your knowledge of molecular biology is also extremely shallow....but I guess you have to keep up the appearance of knowing what you are talking about so that other creationists will respect you. Other gems from you are "sensible" sequences and "non-random" mutation..LOL! Your god must be very weak if you have to misrepresent evolution to make any kind of point.Well, as long as you are playing the re-defining game Peter..it is clear that your MPG nonesense is purely a substitute for the bible and that your non-existent creaton morphogenetic field represents your non-existent god...(morphgenetic field=jesus?, creaton=god) you are pushing pure fundamentalist religious dogma...that is why you have never been able to provide a shred of evidence for any of your assertions...not a single one...you may fool the creationist public that you are saying something new..but not me

Oh and lest you persist in claiming that this definition is only proposed by SLPx and myself:One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

You are a liar.Such emotionally charged words from an objectively minded scientist. Hardly impressive.M: Hardly emotionally charged. Actually, you cannot even ascertain my emotional state from a post. However, your frequent grandstanding, claims of being bored by the site, and overblown statements of "leaving the building" are at best misleading and at worst a lie.T:
However, there is no evidence supporting the charge of derogatory and libelous remarks. Publishing defamatory conclusions is a mark of incompetencM: then you are incompetent..glad you admit it.T: but in light of what has been repeatedly said on this point, it would hardly seem profitable to say more except to suggest that if the pinch comes that your debating and courtesy vocabulary have run dry where you must resort to baser sources of expression,M: What debate? Your only assertion thus far is that science does not use or rely on evidence. You yourself have evaded any discussion of this assertion except to use typical internet troll behavior and insult anyone who posts responses. That you claim "it would hardly seem profitable to say more..." suggest you have no basis for your assertions and nothing substantive to say....if not, make your case and support it.T:
you might with profit do well to spend another season at the feet of your Daddy or some other great preceptor and learn the art of forbearance and being gracious.M:"that your debating and courtesy vocabulary have run dry where you must resort to baser sources of expression"..pot calling the kettle black? Why should I be gracious to you? You might profit by actually making a single post with any substance or even a hint at a point regarding evolution.T:
Indeed you might spend a little time enlarging your vocabulary and legal lore (that is, if you are still interested in learning more about real evidence); that is the best avenue to a tendency to deal squarely with the issue at debate.M: What issue and what debate? If you wish to discuss evolution it behooves you to demonstrate you know anything about science which thus far you have not done. Mark24 directly asked you about legal evidence definitions versus scientific and you avoided/ignored the post. As to vocabulary..why should I as a scientist give a crap about legal vocubulary? Your field is irrelevant to science despite your implications that it has a connection or is in some way superior.M:
So before I actually do leave the building, I will remain in the building. Get it? Not a lie; indeed, not even a promise.M: Just another empty statementT: However, your response is clear and convincing demonstrative evidence of how easily erroneous assumptions lead to the wrong conclusions.M: But is clear and convincing evidence that you have nothing of substance to say.T: How you make a living doing this is unparalleled to even the charlatan of the 14th century. You sound like Cauchon, and have the mindset of his constituents.M: Being insulted by a lawyer...I must really be doing something right ...what do you call the sinking of a ship with 50 lawyers on board? A good start!T:
Keep up the Good Work Peter Borger!!!!M: How are you in any position to evaluate Borger's "work"? Where is YOUR evidence that he has done good "work"? You both suffer from an inability to understand basic science, how to formulate a hypothesis, or gather supporting data so I can see how you, Ten-sai, would be a member of the Borger fan club...or maybe you are compensating for not having been able to cut it as a scientist and having had to settle for being a lawyer..tough break...I would be bitter to.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 11-26-2002]

Get your facts straight and learn to read my posts...you attributed the definition of evolution that I am using to me and SLPx as an exclusive definition. I pointed out that it is also the definition used by evolutionary biologists that write the general textbooks that people like you (since you cannot read the primary literature) need to quote. Yet again, I falsified one of your statements PB
I already gave you guys THE definition of evolutionism, so don't confuse it again with population genetics.M: To quote you "Well, Peter, is no authority to me". Your definition is irrelevant for three reasons 1) It is wrong 2) You have shown no knowledge of the fields you are debating so why should I accept your definition of evolution 3)It is clear that you wish to redefine evolution as a strawman agrument since as it stands you cannot falsify it.As to your constant references to my god this or my religion this 1) there are plenty of evolutionary biologists that believe in god (I am not one of them) 2) Futuyma is not my god...I am not feeble minded enough like you to be so dependent on a mythical being that requires ignoring science to make it through my daily life.

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear Mammuthus,

​

Yet another fallacy!

​

M: How are you in any position to evaluate Borger's "work"? Where is YOUR evidence that he has done good "work"? You both suffer from an inability to understand basic science, how to formulate a hypothesis, or gather supporting data so I can see how you, Ten-sai, would be a member of the Borger fan club...or maybe you are compensating for not having been able to cut it as a scientist and having had to settle for being a lawyer..tough break...I would be bitter to.

​

PB: To claim that your opponents do NOT understand evolutionism, and should listen to the guys who do understand it, is another argumentum ad verecundiam. You can't win a discussion using fallacies, Mammuthus, you know that.
It is always the same story. However, there is one thing I have to agree on. There is indeed nothing to understand about evolutionism since it is false.

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

++++++++++++++++++You are the one who claims ad nauseum that you are an expert in molecular biology. You claimed Richard Dawkins opinions on evolution are irrelevant because he is a zoologist. You claimed Quetzal's arguments were not worth debating because he is not a molecular biologist...so if anyone is addicted to arguing from authority it is you.As for Ten-sai...if you see any point that he is making about anything..or has shown that he knows anything about science..please feel free to share it.

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.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

++++++++++++++So Peter is arguing that it is better to argue from ignorance than from authority...you are doing an excellent job then Peter and staying true to this commandment...

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Dear mammuthus,

​

If you wanna interchange definitions they have to be of equal value. The definitions of population genetics and evolution are NOT of equal value and thus NOT interchangable. Notably, it is logics!! What is wrong with evolutionists logics?

​

It goes like this:

​

'The sun changes its position on the firmament constantly, so the firmament is evolving'

​

or:

​

'The cassier has constantly changing amounts of coins in his teller, so his teller is evolving'

​

or this:

​

'The population has constantly changing gene frequencies so the organisms are evolving'

​

Get real, get your definitions right, and don't fool me any longer.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

++++++++++++Neither the firmament nor the teller are capable reproduction or heritable mutation so your analogy is irrelevant.You are fooling yourself...what's the matter Peter? Can't falsify evolution as it is really defined? Thought not.cheers,
M