Christopher Bohar's Debate Challenge

AiG speaks on creationist integrity?! That must be hard for Hovind to stomach!

Peter B,

quote:

---

A non-falsifiable theory of evolutionism has been attempted to set up by the evolutionists.

---

You gotta be shittin' me! You, YOU, are the one, that at some time or another has claimed to have falsified almost every aspect of evolutionary theory! What blatant, utter, indescribable hypocrisy to at the same time claim it is unfalsifiable.Astounding.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Peter,Either the ToE is falsifiable, or it isn't. You are claiming that the ToE is unfalsifiable, yet at the same time, you have falsified it. Which is it?I suppose there's no point having cake if you can't eat it.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Ten-Sai,

quote:

---

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.

---

And whos rules of evidence would they be, the Federal rules of evidence? If so, should they be applicable to science?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-23-2002]

Ten-sai,You spent a long time giving absolutely no answer. I repeat, what rules of evidence? You claim to be "familiar" with them, please be specific.

quote:

---

Next,you give us this tacit (edited) admission of utter ignorance:

​

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

---

Well of course I'm ignorant, logic boy, I wouldn't be asking a question about something I already know, would I? Only lawyers do that......Please answer the question. 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?[added by edit] Could you also define "evidence", please.
Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-25-2002]

Ten-sai,

quote:

---

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.

---

YOU claimed to be familiar with rules of evidence. Now, for the third time of asking, WHICH ONE? Name it. Why so coy?

quote:

---

Mark:
Could you also define "evidence", please.

---

quote:

---

Ten-sai:
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.

---

Would this definition be getting close? The definition of evidence are the rules themselves which memorialize the concept. If not, could you give your definition, please.

quote:

---

Are you a lawyer too Mark? Because only a layperson would argue like this (get upset) about evidence.

---

I’m not upset about it, YOU brought it up, not me. Seems to me you’re the uptight one here, mate.Also, when responding to a post, if you click reply at the bottom of that message, it gives the author, (& you) a cue as to whom has responded. It’s just easier to keep track of what’s going on for all concerned.Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hi Ten-sai,Post 162 please.Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

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]