Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8904 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-18-2019 7:08 PM
22 online now:
dwise1, Meddle, Phat (AdminPhat) (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,792 Year: 4,829/19,786 Month: 951/873 Week: 307/376 Day: 100/57 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
89101112
13
Author Topic:   Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 181 of 191 (24562)
11-27-2002 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by peter borger
11-26-2002 9:52 PM


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...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by peter borger, posted 11-26-2002 9:52 PM peter borger has not yet responded

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 191 (24773)
11-28-2002 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by peter borger
11-25-2002 11:28 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by peter borger, posted 11-25-2002 11:28 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by peter borger, posted 11-28-2002 9:24 PM Budikka has responded

derwood
Member
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 183 of 191 (24837)
11-28-2002 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by peter borger
11-26-2002 9:52 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by peter borger, posted 11-26-2002 9:52 PM peter borger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by peter borger, posted 11-28-2002 6:35 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5769 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 184 of 191 (24843)
11-28-2002 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by derwood
11-28-2002 6:00 PM


Dear Dr Page,

You say:

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 say:
Wanna have proof? Take a subscribtion to JBC:

WBlanc V, Davidson NO. Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

C to U RNA editing: Mechanisms leading to genetic diversity.
J Biol Chem. 2002 Nov 20 [epub ahead of print]
PMID: 12446660 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

The autors show that RNA editing requires intron-exon alignment and that implicates conserved regions in the intron. Case proven.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by derwood, posted 11-28-2002 6:00 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5769 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 185 of 191 (24847)
11-28-2002 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Mammuthus
11-27-2002 7:09 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Mammuthus, posted 11-27-2002 7:09 AM Mammuthus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Mammuthus, posted 11-29-2002 6:50 AM peter borger has not yet responded

  
peter borger
Member (Idle past 5769 days)
Posts: 965
From: australia
Joined: 07-05-2002


Message 186 of 191 (24869)
11-28-2002 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Budikka
11-28-2002 8:19 AM


Dear Buddika,

Borger: "I already noticed that you don't have a clue about contemporary biology."

Bud: 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: 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.

Borger: "2) If a reference is in German it isn't irrelevant."

Bud: 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: I addressed all the issues. Apperently you don't dare to discuss evolutionism in detail in a scientific way.

Borger: "This one was relevant since it demonstrated that all stonecorals are one (or at most a few) kind(s)."

Bud: So what?

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?

Bud: 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"?!!

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?

Bud: 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.

Borger: That's why some knowledge on contemporary biology is required.

Bud: And none of this is relevant until and unless you competently answer the first two challenges. Please deal with that **first**.

Borger: Still nagging over these two issues? I addressed the issues, so don't bore me.

Borger: "I already explained to you how linguistics work."

Bud: 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.

Borger: If you understand, please explain in a nutshell.

Bud: 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: 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. I know what you want. That I admit that evolutionism is right. Well, dream on boy, evolutionism has been falsified far beyond doubt. You don't wanna see that contemporary biology obliterates evolutionism. You are -of course- free to fool yourself. [Or as Huxley stated: 'Ignoring facts doesn't make them cease to exist' (or something like that).]

Borger: "Apparently you don't know what these words mean."

Bud: Apparently neither do you since you ducked the question (again).

Borger: Thanks for conceeding I was right.

Borger: "Listen, Mr Buddika, it is the biggest evolutionist's fallacy to present population genetics as evolution."

Bud: We've already been through this. Wake me up if you ever have anything new or relevant to say.

Borger: Deliberately interchanging definition that are not equal is non-science, illogic, and deception of the gullible. I know better.

Borger: "You may be able to fool the public, you don't fool me."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You're hilarious! Tell me another one.

Borger: brilliant reply.

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."

Bud: Liar! You have not defined "kind" despite tiresomely repeated requests. You yourself have admitted more than once that the definition you gave was circular.

Borger: It may be a tautology, but you should be fami-liar ()
with tautologies. 'Survival of the fittest' is a tautology. So, this can hardly be your problem. In my opinion you are unable to address the issues in a scientific way.

Bud: 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.

Borger: I did that.

Bud: 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.

Borger: I follow the rules also followed by evolutionism and thus provide a possible explanation. Science will provide the rest, since it is a testable hypothesis.

Bud: 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.

Borger: Take what ever you want. But remember, it is better to give than to take.

Bud: 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 already responded to your issues, I provide a definition for kind and provided an example for a kind. That's what you asked for, and I did that. So what's your problem? Oh, I see. Not the answers you wanna hear. Well, better make up the answers yourself, then.

Borger: "I am still waiting for your references."

References for what? For 140 years of evidence supporting evolution?

Borger: Correction. 120 years of fooling each other and 20 years of scientific evidence against evolutionism.

Borger: "Probably you don't have the guts to discuss evolutionism in detail. It is always the same, and I am used to it."

Bud: 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.

Borger: As soon as you take off your biased glasses 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.

Bud: 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.

Borger: You don't know anything about me and my beliefs.

Bud: 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.

Borger: No, this is the 'Buddika-is-an-evolutionist-and-that-is-the-only-option-and-he-doesn't-wanna-discuss-about-it' thread.

Bud: Please do let me know if there is any way at all I can simplify this ever further until even you can grasp it.

Borger: Tell me what answers you want to hear. I can make them up.

Best wishes,
Peter


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Budikka, posted 11-28-2002 8:19 AM Budikka has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Budikka, posted 11-29-2002 3:05 PM peter borger has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 187 of 191 (24908)
11-29-2002 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by peter borger
11-28-2002 7:57 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by peter borger, posted 11-28-2002 7:57 PM peter borger has not yet responded

Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 188 of 191 (24956)
11-29-2002 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by peter borger
11-28-2002 9:24 PM


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:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhdjm/courses/b242/OneGene/OneGenePP.pdf
http://www.academicpress.com/inscight/05071997/evoluti1.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoDefinition.html
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/definitions.html
http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/evol.html
http://www.montana.edu/~wwwbi/staff/creel/bio405/405lec5.pdf
http://www.life.uiuc.edu/bio100/lectures/sp98lects/22s98evolution.html
http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~csasso/ch17.htm
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~jjannink/Teaching/2001/Systematic%20allele%20frequency%20change.pdf
http://chroma.gs.washington.edu/outreach/genetics/sickle/sickle-bean.html

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.

Budikka


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by peter borger, posted 11-28-2002 9:24 PM peter borger has not yet responded

Ten-sai
Unregistered


Message 189 of 191 (24962)
11-29-2002 3:41 PM


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


Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by mark24, posted 11-29-2002 4:03 PM You have not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3299 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 190 of 191 (24966)
11-29-2002 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Ten-sai
11-29-2002 3:41 PM


Ten-sai,

quote:
I think Mr. Borger addressed that quite satisfactorily in his rather compelling case for the MPG.

Really? Compelling? And what specifically about Peter Borgers evidence is acceptable to you and your "rules of evidence" (if you EVER get around to being specific), but evidence for evolution is somehow logically unnacceptable?

Please be specific.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-29-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Ten-sai, posted 11-29-2002 3:41 PM Ten-sai has not yet responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 191 of 191 (24997)
11-29-2002 9:21 PM


The topic starter feels that this thread has gone way off topic, productive discussion has ceased, and it is now going around in circles. He has recommended (ie requested) that it be closed.

So be it done.

Adminnemooseus

------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}


  
RewPrev1
...
89101112
13
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019