Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

PB,I think you hit the nail on the head here:

quote:

---

I will give you the definition:
"Evolutionism is the movement that claims that all life forms arose by naturalistic means through random mutations and selection."

​

There is NOT a skerrick of evidence for this assertion, and the observations we do on biology point in the opposite direction.

---

Indeed. What else is there to discuss? This trade secret alone is the Achilles' Heel of evolution and the very reason why no reasonable person would buy into the lie that evolution is a fact of science. Guess that's where all the insecurity comes from . . .Bitter Boy Buddika,You are one entertaining ole chap! Are you really as upset as your posts indicate? Beacause, 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.Peace,Ten-saiPS. Was that a joke about not believing Jesus Christ existed? 'Cause it made me laugh.

Hoo-boy! B-I'm not kidding, you are really making me laugh! I can't believe you are this upset. It's killing me!!!PE-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.M-How does evidence of Jesus Christ's existence prove that all life forms arose by naturalistic means through random mutations and selection is true? 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.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!Peace,Ten-saiPS. 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 ...

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

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-saiPS. 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!

Buddika, you wouldn’t know what evidence was if it hit you in the face.Personally, I haven’t posted b/c you people bore me.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.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 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.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.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.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: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.I am.Peace,Ten-sai

Hi Mark,I noticed you edited your post to include the word Federal in there. Seems like you’re trying to make yourself appear more knowledgeable of real evidence than you actually are. Typical of the layperson.Anywho, why would you cite Federal Rules of Evidence? You live in the UK. Don’t you have evidence rules over there? Give it a gander, read up ole chap!!! (btw, the US gets our rules of evidence from the common law, itself having its origin over there in the UK).Next,you give us this tacit (edited) admission of utter ignorance:

quote:

---

And whos rules of evidence would they be, the Federal rules of evidence? If so, should they be applicable to science?

---

First, you’d have to give us a definition of ‘science’ (I won’t hold my breath for a peer-reviewed discussion on the definition of science.)Second, science doesn’t have any rules of evidence. Soooooo, it would appear that any logical rules of evidence would be a help in filling this void. Take your pick, what do we care? We just want to verify you understand the concept.Third, your statement reveals an absurd position, to wit: evidence isn’t applicable to science!BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ok, I’ve composed myself now. Have it your way, but just don’t use the word evidence when you opine from your soapbox. Agreed?Peace,Ten-saiPS. Buddika, Phillip E. Johnson is brilliant; however, my position is not the same as his. Do you have the capacity to distinguish between the two arguments? Bye-bye, tough guy!PSS. Someone here questioned my motives for registering!!! HA! Proves my point about evidence b/c motives influence what proponents claim is evidence (maybe you people aren’t such lost causes if you recognize this important attribute of evidence, even if the recognition was subconscious and in spite of yourselves). But how would science know such a thing about motives? Anybody care to cite a peer-reviewed resource on the rules of scientific evidence? Methinks it doesn’t exist

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

Hi Mammuthus,You are a liar.Such emotionally charged words from an objectively minded scientist. Hardly impressive.However, there is no evidence supporting the charge of derogatory and libelous remarks. Publishing defamatory conclusions is a mark of incompetence, 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, 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. 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.So before I actually do leave the building, I will remain in the building. Get it? Not a lie; indeed, not even a promise. However, your response is clear and convincing demonstrative evidence of how easily erroneous assumptions lead to the wrong conclusions. 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.Keep up the Good Work Peter Borger!!!!Peace,Ten-sai

Budikka said-
and define the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind".I think Mr. Borger addressed that quite satisfactorily in his rather compelling case for the MPG. You must of glossed over it. Go have a milkshake, calm down, and give Mr. Borger's 22 page thread an honest look.Wait, that was an oxymoron. My bad. By definition, evolutionism can't give creationism an honest look!Mewonders if Budikka holds an advanced degree in ANYTHING?KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK MR. BORGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Peace,Ten-sai