Search results

Re: Genes record a prehistoric volcano eruption in the Galáp After all that time you spent with bernhard I think that would be self evident now. No matter how much the same methodologies are used in other fields the moment it's applied to ToE you are lying and just making assumptions.

No problem. I just wonder how he'll dishonestly try to weasel out of this. Not that I think I left any room for him to do so.

You do understand that DNA evidence can be used in more than just that one way? By the same principle we can track the lineage of suspect to narrow the pool of possible suspects we can trace evolutionary lineage. What do I mean, the accumulations of neutral mutations and the fixation of them...

Well yea, probably why he doesn't want someone to actually give him the source of the evidence. He's argued very strongly against anyone using any sort of source and for his opponents (Aronra and hackenslash) to just give him the evidence, he doesn't want the sources because that's an appeal to...

I love his statement saying if you ask for his source you admit his claim is true. :roll: No it means I don't trust lieing creationist to actually read the whole discussion. I'm wondering if his"poor condition" is just that fossils are smashed, crushed, and sometimes spread out a little...

Well can sort of tell hackenslash's frustration within his reply. The combination of typos and poor quoting (like what we are betting on for Bernard to learn). Hearing how those forums lock for editing after a period of time I think he should have taken his time for that reply. It was a good...

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11541 HWIN linked me this page once awhile back. It has a lot of the special coding for this page. There was an option for bullet pointed lists.

Did anyone really expect him to honestly evaluate the evidence? He won't even engage in a serious discourse when he comes to someone directly. Demanding evidence when he doesn't have the slightest idea what actually constitutes evidence or the ToE. I'm giving hackenslash a lot of credit if he...

] I bet "No" at 40 units. This one seems too nuanced for him to pull off.

Wow, we all really trust hackenslash to be on his best behavior in a more formal debate.

Well if this is the improved version, the original must be really bad, because this is just plain craptastic. And there lies the fault of your whole argument. Heck you even referenced the fact that only one type of life has these structures, eukaryotic cells. If you have to define what type...

I know really unlikely, but he does have 7 days and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt at the moment.

I'm thinking it's just a for fun joking thing with the fact it's "internet money". Maybe he is actually taking his time and getting someone to proof read his post so that he will use "you're" and your properly. Wouldn't that be nice? Of course that would fly in the face of his nature as...

I'm going to guess, and it's purely a guess that I thought now, that you are being dragged straight down to Hell in his mind. Towards the end of my time as a believer, from about college until I stopped believing around 2008-2009, I had more of a pluristic sort of view on religion. Everyone...

Yea, I skimmed his parts and I'll admit to not always following through the links so I didn't know that Rumraket's paper actually addressed the tetragen, but I did know he tried to claim that. He also tried claiming that the gene was a duplication of front flipper genes. During that whole...

Well just look at what he was like discussing whale evolution with you guys. Any small little loop hole he could try and snake his way into, didn't matter that the weight of the evidence would crush him in that crack he found, he was trying to get into. Whether it was his claim that it wasn't...

Or the other stand by, "But it's the same information". Even though the logical conclusion is that 1+1=2 so even a duplicated gene is new additional information, a repeated bit of "information" that wasn't present before is still new information. It really is a no win situation. Like...

Whoops my bad. Trying to go with the bigger bet on hackenslash not insulting I messed myself up with the math.

I should have jumped in on the bets sooner so I don't seem like HWIN. If my credit is good: 33 on "No, Bernard will not learn the quote function." 66 on hackenslash not being insultive. I have "faith" that he'll be genuous in his desire to have a formal style debate. 33 on Yes Bernard will...

I would think it would be pretty obvious at that point with hackenslash when he starts getting insultive, but as we all know common sense only applies to common experience. Though based on his own statements in setting this up he'll behave, and since he's tying to show how disingenuous...