Borger: "Why don't you demonstrate that you have knowledge on the topics you wanna discuss. The only references you provided so far are non-scientific URLs."
When you are ready for science, then perhaps you can **DEFINE "KIND" IN A NON-CIRCULAR SCIENTIFIC MANNER** and define the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from evolving into another "kind". These are the two challenges most basic to establishing a case for creation. Without them, creation fails completely, as you have so far failed completely to define either of these. When you have met this test, then you can talk about science. Until then, you have nothing to talk about but your own failures.
I have repeatedly explained in terms so simple that even you ought to be able to have grasped them by now, that this thread is dealing only with the issues I raised in the opening message, whether **you** like that or not. If you want to deal with other issues, then go elsewhere. Please.
If you want to be in this thread, then deal with the issues I have raised, the most glaring of which is your continued inability to define terms and mechanisms which are fundamental to establishing even a pretence of a creation "model". Since neither you nor any other creationist has even begin to address these issues competently, creation has failed to make any sort of case in this thread.
Borger: "I addressed all the issues. Apperently (sic) you don't dare to discuss evolutionism in detail in a scientific way."
No, I discuss the real subject, "evolution", not someone's made-up name that he has yet again failed to validate. And once again, until you define "kind" in an intelligent, non-circular manner and define a mechanism which prevents these defined "kinds" (as opposed to species) from evolving, you haven't even addressed the two simplest questions in the batch. Please - go back to school, You are out of your depth here.
This is not your rambling blather on genes, this is a thread with stated issues which you need to address if you WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY in this thread. Now will you answer the first two challenges properly or will you have the decency to admit that you cannot answer them? Yes or no?
Borger: "You wanted me -after having defined what a kind is- to present an example of a 'kind'. I did. Now it is not relevant? What's wrong with you?"
Blah blah blah is "one or a few kinds" - and this is supposed to be some sort of scientific definition, from "the science guy"?! You're in rare form today. It is tempting to imagine that not all of the turkeys got eaten yesterday - maybe some are posting messages on these boards, gobbling up the band width....
I specifically asked you to give examples of kinds and to contrast them with organisms that seem similar but are in fact different kinds. The implication was that you would define kind and show clear examples to support your definition. I have yet to see you do this.
Circular "definitions" and vague blather and finger-pointing at some corals that may or may not be the same kind (since you yourself cannot say) simply doesn't get it done. First of all, it is too vague, and secondly, I see no evidence whatsoever offered to support even your diffuse case.
If the creationists are right, then "kind" ought to be the most easily defined thing on the planet, and the mechanism which prevents one "kind" from transforming into another ought to be so obvious it pokes you in the eye, yet here we are, post after post after post and yet neither you nor any other creationist can nail it down! How embarrassing!
Borger: "Here you demonstrate stubborness. I defined kind, and you are nagging that is is not a good definition. Well, if it is not a good definition, why don't you make up the definition?"
Excuse me, I had to take out twenty minutes to stop laughing at your pathetic wriggling.
YOU DID ****NOT**** DEFINE KIND. You offered a circular description, and when I pointed out to you that it was circular, you admitted that it was. How does this in any way, shape, or form, define anything? Evolutionists can define species as groups of organisms separated by lack of natural interbreeding. If it is so simple for evolutionists to offer a non-circular definition when speciation is clearly occurring, blurring the boundaries, why is it that you cannot offer a scientific definition of "kind" given that your position is that "kinds" are immutable?
I have consistently and repeatedly asked you to define "kind" without using a circular definition. You are the one who keeps blathering about science, but I fail to see you employing any whatsoever in defining "kind". And now, excuse me while I laugh my ass off some more, you are asking **me** to define something you have invented? Excuse me but on which street corner car did you leave your brain this morning? You want me to define your nonsense for you? Now I have heard everything!
Borger: "Instead of reading all my falsifications of evolutionism that are backed up with scientific references, you keep nagging that I don't provide support for my assertions."
No - you still don't get it. All I asked for was a reference or two to the use of the word "evolutionism" outside of creationist garbage. And yet again you have failed to offer one. You have the gall to whine about my URLs not being adequate references for you, yet here you are, empty-handed when it comes to references for your pseudo-speak.
Borger: "I know what you want."
Clearly you do not otherwise you would have competently and non-cicularly defined "kind" before now.
Borger: "That I admit that evolutionism is right."
No - I want you to show me where that is a real word.
Borger: "Well, dream on boy, evolutionism has been falsified far beyond doubt."
This from the lame-brian who accuses me of bias!
Blather and vague allusions to your whacky re-interpretations of the hard work of real scientists does not constitute a falsification of anything except your own qualification to discuss these issues! Not even close. I suppose it would be pointless to ask you **yet again** to detail which of these scientists - the ones who wrote the papers you are so fond of flapping in our faces - you have discussed your opinions with, and how many of those have agreed that you know what you are talking about?
Borger: "You don't wanna see that contemporary biology obliterates evolutionism."
I personally obliterated "evolutionism" because there is no such word. As far as contemporary biology is concerned, you would have to understand that its very foundation rests upon evolution. Since you cannot even grasp this, your opinion is entirely worthless.
Borger: Deliberately interchanging definition that are not equal is non-science, illogic, and deception of the gullible. I know better."
Clearly you do not, since you have no idea what the meaning of the word "evolution" (notice a lack of "ism") actually is. I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you (with references) that it is nothing more than a change in allele frequency in a population. Since this defeats your intellect, you have to do what creationists always do in a bind - redefine terms and invent words and meanings just to shore up your pathetic excuse for a case.
Once again evolution is:
Borger: "In other words Buddika says: "I am unable to discuss the topic of evolutionism at a scientific and contemporary level".
Nope - I am unable to discuss it because there is no such thing. If you want to make up words, then come right out and say it. Make up the word and then - now here is the hard part - *define the word* - you know, just like you defined "kind". So here we are, since you have now even abandoned this and left it up to me to define your terms for you, let me define evolutionism: hey, it's evolutionism! There, that ought to satisfy your limited intellectual capacity and requirements.
Borger: "It may be a tautology, but you should be fami-liar ()
with tautologies. 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology."
Your definition is a tautology, and whether or not there exist in the world other tautologies is not excuse for you to attempt this pathetic and childish ruse. Just come out and admit that you are incompetent, clueless, and out of your depth. We all know it. Just admit it.
Besides, survival of the fittest is not a tautology, so when you are done with regurgitating your creationist brainwashing, can we get on with defining "kind"?
Borger: Correction. 120 years of fooling each other and 20 years of scientific evidence against evolutionism.
Never saw that - can you provide references to peer-reviewed science journal articles that have been published with the express purpose of refuting evolution? I thought not. You lose. Can you instead, then, provide references to your favorite papers, and quote me in the conclusion to those papers where the authors make the claim that evolution is refuted by the work the papers report? Nope. I thought not. You lose.
Borger: As soon as you take off your biased glasses"
This from the paragon of disinterest who starts off every discussion insisting that he knows that NDT has fallen? Yep. He knows bias - he's an expert on it.
Borger: "...we can actually start discussing. I don't mind you have an opposite opinion, but you have to convince me with scientific arguments. As long as you can't, I rule."
When you can offer some scientific definitions *****THAT ARE NOT CIRCULAR AND THAT DEFINE "KIND" AND PREVENTION OF "KIND" TRANSFORMATIONS RATHER THAN PREVENTION OF SPECIATION****, then there might be some discussion, but there can be no discussion until you prove that:
1. You know what you are talking about (clearly all evidence so far proves that you do not), and
2. You can competently answer the simplest of questions that have been posed repeatedly to you **in this thread**, and
3. You can focus on the topics in this thread instead of the fluff in your brain.
Borger: You don't know anything about me and my beliefs.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Borger: "No, this is the 'Buddika-is-an-evolutionist-and-that-is-the-only-option-and-he-doesn't-wanna-discuss-about-it' thread."
Quite clearly if you cannot even grasp a simple concept such as what this thread is about when I have made it clear enough even for a two-year-old to understand from the outset, then the problem is your desperate and unattended need for serious psychiatric evaluation.
Borger: "Tell me what answers you want to hear. I can make them up."
You've been doing that since I read your first message. Nothing new here.
Well this is going nowhere since Bohar has failed to show and the creationists have failed to give intelligent and competent answers to challenges despite incessantly repeated requests. Since this thread is wa-ay off topic, and since all Borger is doing is jerking around and strutting himself like a turkey-cock, I declare that the creationists have failed to support their case and this thread is now closed.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 186 by peter borger, posted 11-28-2002 9:24 PM|| ||peter borger has not yet responded|