Here comes another one...

[AronRa]

On 11/11/12, I received the following message:

I accept your challenge
Hello I heard you made a challenge that you can get anyone to become an evolutionist. I accept your challenge, please try and convert me to evolutionist dogma

Cheers
Gilbertus

Time has become something of an issue for me, so I didn't respond until more than two weeks later.

11/26/12.

I would -except that there is no 'evolutionist dogma'.

Before you accept the challenge, you should probably know what the challenge is.

Here is an easy-to-source occasion wherein my challenge was initially accepted. The subject ducked out early on, as they usually do, but at least he heard the challenge properly conveyed. So should you.
http://www.christianforums.com/t4441715/

If you still accept, then we'll need to agree on a set of definitions before we begin. I hate it when the goal posts move or when my opponents are working from straw-man fallacies which no scientist would endorse. So let's make sure we're both using the same terms to mean the same things, and that our definition is accurate.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2012/09/15/offerings-to-the-atheist-dictionary/

Even then, I must warn you in advance, I am under a contractual obligation to have my book done ASAP. The publisher has already paid for it. I'm trying to have it done by February, but that will mean devoting all the time I can spare.

When the speaking season ended a couple weeks ago, I had roughly 2800 unread comments and personal messages dating back a month-and-a-half. Now I'm down to 875, only a couple weeks behind. Once I clear the rest of those, I'm only going to be working exclusively on my book. If you're very anxious, I will try to spare some time for you, but it may be only one post per week.

11/27/12

Thanks for finally getting back to me.

I accept that this will take place on

http://www.christianforums.com/t4441715/

However I do not accept the use of the definitions YOU have created. I would much prefer to use dictionary definitions found here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/

This is the site I go to for all my references and definitions of words in debates, as it is unbiased and an actual dictionary. I read you (attempt) at a dictionary or reference list and have seen a few instances where the rdefinition of things, such as "belief" and "atheism" have been doctored in order to allow the atheist his own "goal post shifting", (I see this often in debates, but its a new tactic to have ones own definitions set before a debate begins, kudos to you for showing me something new).

If you refuse to use the standard dictionary references above the ones of your own making, then I will consider that you are not serious in your challenge, as you do not wish to have a fair playing field as you do not want a neutral source and you'd prefer to have everything as you define them.

However if you do not wish to go ahead under these neutral terms, but wish to debate me on another topic feel free to find me on http://www.evolutionfairytale.com.

11/30/2012

I hadn't actually intended to use ChristianForums because they have a tendency to delete or block my posts whenever they find their beliefs offended. I prefer to use the League of Reason forums because I know whatever we post will remain up uncensored, and I know there will be other scientists there moderating.

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/

As for definitions, we could never settle for just one dictionary. The reason some of my definitions disturb you is that they are compiled from a comparative consensus, meaning I can show they are accurate even if you don't like it. Notice also that the definitions I showed you were submitted for review and revision by whomever saw them, and what you see now is what remains after required corrections were made. If you have a problem with any of the definitions I put forward, show me how it is wrong using multiple comparisons from appropriate sources if you can. Failing that, admit that it isn't wrong after all, and we'll move on.

Another reason your dictionary won't be good enough is that mere common-language dictionaries never get scientific definitions right. You can't show me any layman's dictionary that has the proper biological definition for 'animal' for example. Same with 'abiogenesis'. Every dictionary I have ever seen confuses that with 'Spontaneous Generation', and none of those dictionaries will correct that error even with citations provided. So you're not talking about neutral terms; you're talking about inadequate sources and inaccurate usage. Creationism depends on straw-man fallacies. So your allegation that I could or would use my definitions to shift goal-posts is frankly an empty accusation. My side of this argument never does what your side always does. The use of rigid, consistent, verifiably accurate definitions will prevent that on both sides. They'll also illustrate how you've misunderstood these terms all along, and that you won't be allowed to do that anymore. Doubtless you won't be comfortable with that, so I expect some resistance. However remember the onus is on me to prove my point, and I will. Look at the site you suggested for example; it depends on misdefining both 'evolution' and 'fairy tale' and juxtaposing them. If you'll look into this, you will find that evolution really is a factual explanation of biodiversity, not the collection of fairy tales that Genesis actually is. If you'll go the distance with me, you will also inevitably discover that your creationist mentors have all lied to you about practically every important point in this discussion.

12/02/2012

I am sure they do so because you either engage in logical fallacies or make empty accusations, (I've chatted with MANY evolutionists and its my observation that these two things are a running trend)

Perhaps you'd be more interested in going to evolutionfairytale,com since their mods are fair and reasonable. I have read some posts on the league and it seems that the mods like to engage in name calling. I read your discussion with Bob Enyart and the mod told him off for something, yet said nothing when you did the same thing later. Such blatant bias is not a good place to promote critical thinking, so on that justification I would rather not talk there.

How could you possibly know why your "definitions" disturb me, let alone know whether they do or not... Lest you're a mind reader or have special powers... Seems like your attempt to pass off as a know-it-all failed. You cannot presume to know what people think.

Consensus of what? Isn't that is what a dictionary is by definition? Why try and re-write the dictionary unless you have an agenda?

Here, I will demonstrate just one of your meager attempts at definition is wrong, (by definition lol).

You claim

Faith: A firm, stoic, and sacred conviction which is both adopted and maintained independent of physical evidence or logical proof.

Here is the actual meaning

faith
[feyth] Show IPA

noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t

2. Complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman".[Wordnet]

4. Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors".[Wordnet]

7. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth.[Websters]

10. That which is believed on any subject, whether in science, politics, or religion; especially (Theol.), a system of religious belief of any kind; as, the Jewish or Mohammedan faith; and especially, the system of truth taught by Christ; as, the Christian faith; also, the creed or belief of a Christian society or church.[Websters]

13. Credibility or truth.[Websters].

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/faith

See how your definition automatically boxes "faith" as something one ought not to believe... Yet you're totally skipping over the fact that people have faith in their partner, you have faith in your ability to be rational, etc. Faith doesn't just concern Religion, despite what you may believe. Point 10 of the second website quoted is a very good one depicting that EVERYTHING we believe in, (even evolution etc), relies on a measure of faith.

Boxing in the definition is intellectually dishonesty, even more so when you ask me to agree to these spurious definitions before hand. There is nothing wrong with a dictionary, and if your "defintions" are defined by dictionaries, (despite where I've shown this is not the case), then there is no need at all to enforce others to follow your definitions, since your definitions are (apparantly) based on those dictionaries anyway. Meaning its illogical of you to try and re-write the dictionary whilst claiming that your definitions are based on the dictionary, but you do so because the dictionary is not good enough... See the contradiction here?

Who reviewed your definitions? Like-minded atheists? How could they spot any contradictions if they are like-minded? Its the same as asking a Christian to pick out problems with the Bible, or an evolutionist to pick out problems with evolution. All people are biased towards their own point of view, ergo your "peer review" by people who are of the same opinion as you is barely worth the time.

It is wrong because YOU are the one who has compiled them, leave that work to the multitudes of experts who do that for a living, and who actually have the authority to do so, unlike you who is just a person trying to re-write the dictionary. Additionally how is a reputable dictionary inappropriate, how about you provide evidence for such, if a scientific dictionary is required then feel free to use one, as long as its an official dictionary not one of your making.

I am talking about using neutral sources since the people who made the dictionary do not care about the debate between design and chance, meaning they "do not have a dog in this fight".. You on the other hand is taking part in this meaning any attempt of you trying to redefine words will most likely be done so to try and further your goals here. Merely stating that a dictionary is not neutral does nothing, you need evidence for your claims.

Please demonstrate the difference of spontaneous generation and abiogenesis since they imply a very very similar conclusion. Life from non-life, (thus defying the Law of Biogenesis, trust evolutionists to try and defy natural law lol).

What goal posts have I shifted? Shifting blame is a very common "tactic" however it won't work. As far as I have seen YOU are the one attempting to create his own defintions of words rather than use the established neutral definitions in an established official source... WIth the logically invalid reason being because you feel the dictionaries are inaccurate yet you claim that your definitions are based on dictionaries. But if not then what? What measure of objectivity and fairness is there when you get to define the words being used?

Which terms have I misunderstood? Your words are not golden, just because you say something doesn't make it true, (unless you have this amazing power to make things true by saying it, and if so please say that I have $1,000,000 in the bank lol). In other words where is your evidence that I have misunderstood anything at all? We haven't even started and you're claiming I misunderstand stuff, what stuff?
(this seems to be a reoccuring thing where you make spurious claims but do not give any evidence for them... Yet I get told that evidence is the be-all for evolutionists?... oops)

Creationist mentors? Where are you getting this crap? I am a science student, I used to believe in evolution, however the more I CRITICALLY looked at the details, (the inner workings of the cell is most important for me), I saw this glaring hole. Whenever I asked my lecturers about these holes they'd skip over them and not deal with the problems, this was my escape from the illusion of evolution.

Evolution may seem great when you are comparing large animals to each other, but when you go to the molecular level evolution has no leg to stand on there, there are no mechanisms proposed there are no results to be gleaned there is nothing.

At this time, I would like to remind everyone that I did tell this guy that I don't have a lot of time, and that's why it takes me a couple weeks to respond. However just ten days later, I got this:

12/12/2012

So whats going on Aron? Have you given up already?

I figured that my demonstration of your attempt at a "dictionary" would resolve the problem, as you had asked for an example of its inconsistency.

If you cannot see that a "dictionary" or set of definitions that has been "peer reviewed" by like-minded people (in this case atheists) will inherently contain an atheist bias, hence why I do not accept your definitions since whilst you claim they have been "checked" they have only been done so via one perspective, surely you realise that every person is biased hence to have proper review of something is to have all perspectives "have at it", THAT would be real critical review.

Additionally from my perspective evolution, (changes to different organisms), is more the fairytale since there has been no actual mechanisms claimed for its operation. Natural selection is claimed like a magic wand that solves all problems however there has been no attempt to define the mechanisms of this selection on a macro and on the micro (DNA) level. This is a glaring omission for something touted as "fact", since its akin to someone claiming X is a fact, but they just don't know how it works.... If the workings are not known then how can someone claim that evolution was the cause, since it cannot be verified via observations of its mechanisms in action.

Now you may claim that "evolution" is observed as changes within moth colour, beak shape, fur colour etc however such are benign changes which would not logically lead to a new species or form of organism.. Rather such changes would likely result in a new breed of the same species... Therefore it must be asked if these small changes are "evidence" of the larger (extrapolated) changes, how could one logically concieve the changes within the colour of a moth as to result in new body structures which would in turn lead to it becoming something other than a moth? In other words, its an evolutionist's attempt at changing the goal posts since small changes such as colour etc cannot be logically concieved to be a precursor to larger (more fundamental) changes.

And now to address this blustering, cocksure, would-be antagonist who imagines himself to such a priority.

Gilbertus, we haven't even started and I already have to repeat explanations that you didn't understand the first time. I could say that is typical, but it still doesn't bode well. You asked for the difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation after I already gave it. I show you the evidence, and you call it a spurious claim and demand evidence for it. This is the stuff you don't understand.

My definitions were subjected to review by anyone who could show where or how some correction was required. You're welcome to try your hand, but if you can't do that, (and we both already know you can't) then since I have already shown that those are the accurate definitions in the relevant context, then that's what we will use. You're unable to do that, and that's why you're complaining. Your arguments depend on misrepresented and misdefined terms, and it seems you're already aware of that.

For example, you mentioned evolutionary mechanisms on a macro and micro, and you associated micro-level evolution with the DNA level. Wow. Look up the definitions I gave you for microevolution and macroevolution, and you will see that I'm using the verifiably correct definitions and you're the wholly wrong nonsense ones.

I also showed you how to know when and how common dictionaries are inconsistent to the point of being unreliable -when we arguing terms of scientific speciality. Remember my example of the definition of 'animal' for example? I use the definitions I do; because I have already objectively verified that they are more accurate and more consistent than what you could find in any common dictionary.

For example, as I told Ray Comfort, at (18:05 - 19:01) in our debate, the dictionary presents two different contexts for the word, 'faith', and it is a typical tactic of the creationist that they mix the two. As if to prove my point, Ray immediately did just that. So did you.

It's not uncommon to have two different contexts -with completely different meanings- for one word. Look up the word, 'reason' for example. Is it the ability to extrapolate logically? Or is it a cause or catalyst? It is both, but not at the same time, not in the same context.

So what I have done is strip away irrelevant contexts from this topic. I haven't boxed anything in. Instead I've sourced more than just one dictionary, and more than just dictionaries; I've sourced every definitive authority on that term. I have already explained this in several of my videos, including (3:48 - 6:46) of the 5th foundational falsehood of creationism, and (6:00 - 8:13) of Philosophizing symbology. I explain this much more extensively in my video, Reasonable Faith?!. In another video, Faith is not a virtue, I also explain why faith is something one ought not to believe, yet we are taught that we should believe it anyway. Everything YOU believe may require faith, but if faith were required for anything I believed, I wouldn't believe it anymore. All of my beliefs are based on reason instead. That is how our philosophies differ.

There is no comparison between our two perspectives. We are not equally opposite. I can point out problems in both evolution and creationism, where I doubt you could show any actual issue in either one. I don't the bias that you do. Science seeks to minimize or eliminate bias. They do this by requiring an evidentiary basis behind all postulations, by demanding that all hypotheses be testable and potentially falsifiable, and they do this by subjecting all examinations or experiments to critical analysis in peer review. This is how science is the antithesis of faith.

I do not intend to pursue this conversation until February -for the reasons I have already explained. When we do resume, it will paced so that I can make time for it somehow, and so that you will get the most out of it.

You would doubtless claim that gravity is a fact, except that no one knows how it works. With evolution, we actually do know how it works, and I will be delighted to show you those mechanisms which you said don't exist. I have every intention of allowing your perspective and mine to "have at it", but on a level playing field which you are totally unprepared for. Only then will you realize how empty your position really is, or how measurably accurate mine is. All you've done so far is repeat some of the foundational falsehoods of creationism that I have already refuted innumerable times. For all your posturing that you're supposedly a science student, it's obvious that you don't know anything you're talking about, and you have no idea what an education you've got coming. I have to make time for you.

Just remember, I'm already aware that apart from misdefined terms and straw-man characterizations, your position also depends on deliberate ignorance, the avoidance of direct questions, and being deliberately obtuse. But this format will be structured such that you won't get away with any of that either. Looking forward to it.

 

[Dustnite]

Perhaps you'd be more interested in going to evolutionfairytale,com since their mods are fair and reasonable.

This is the best quote from Gilbertus. It's the best because it's so laughably untrue

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Perhaps you'd be more interested in going to evolutionfairytale,com since their mods are fair and reasonable.

This is the best quote from Gilbertus. It's the best because it's so laughably untrue

Agreed.

I also do not think Gilbertus is worth the time or effort in AronRa's case. Surely AronRa has much bigger fish to fry.

In addition, I see that there is a Lilandra on that other thread, is that the same Lilandra that guest blogs on your blog? If it were, perhaps she would also enjoy posting on this forum.

 

[Inferno]

Didn't read everything yet, gonna update this post in a few hours.

In addition, I see that there is a Lilandra on that other thread, is that the same Lilandra that guest blogs on your blog? If it were, perhaps she would also enjoy posting on this forum.

"The same Lilandra" aka "Aron's wife".

You claim

Faith: A firm, stoic, and sacred conviction which is both adopted and maintained independent of physical evidence or logical proof.

Here is the actual meaning:

...

3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

Highlighted in bold... :facepalm:

 

[gilbo12345]

"Boxing in the definition is intellectually dishonesty, even more so when you ask me to agree to these spurious definitions before hand. There is nothing wrong with a dictionary, and if your "defintions" are defined by dictionaries, (despite where I've shown this is not the case), then there is no need at all to enforce others to follow your definitions, since your definitions are (apparantly) based on those dictionaries anyway. Meaning its illogical of you to try and re-write the dictionary whilst claiming that your definitions are based on the dictionary, but you do so because the dictionary is not good enough... See the contradiction here?"


He does have a point, why claim that your definitions are correct because they come from the dictionary, yet complain that the need for your own definitions is because dictionaries get things wrong? Seems like a huge lack of reasoning to me.

They may generalise scientific terms, however last time I heard "faith" wasn't a scientific term needing an atheist redefinition.

 

[AronRa]

Not surprisingly, this would-be challenger turned out to be just another insincere troll. I sent him the link to this thread, and this was the response I got:

Huh? So you need your cheerleaders? To get you out of a bind?

If you cannot reply, (as is implied by your lack of response here), then simply state so and we can move on to another topic of inquiry

So he didn't really accept my challenge after all. Oh well, back to work.

 

[Darkprophet232]

It seems that Gilbertus believes that dictionary.reference.com to be run by a cabal of linguistic paragons, whose positions are handed down by divine creed, and spend hours upon hours debating on how words ought to be defined based on their long years of pioneering and exploring lexicons, and not that the site is run by a group of English and computer nerds employed by a media conglomerate in order to bring in ad revenue.

 

[Aelyn]

Hullo ! I came here via the Evolution Fairytale forum, where Gilbertus posted about his participation here. Creationism/Evolution debates are my main interest and I already have a number of places where I get my fix so I can't say how much I might participate here in the future, but I joined just to comment on this bit :

You would doubtless claim that gravity is a fact, except that no one knows how it works.

I wouldn't be so sure, see here :
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5298&view=findpost&p=87528

I actually find it interesting the extent to which creationists often disagree with basic Newtonian physics.

 

[gilbo12345]

Hullo ! I came here via the Evolution Fairytale forum, where Gilbertus posted about his participation here. Creationism/Evolution debates are my main interest and I already have a number of places where I get my fix so I can't say how much I might participate here in the future, but I joined just to comment on this bit :

You would doubtless claim that gravity is a fact, except that no one knows how it works.

I wouldn't be so sure, see here :
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5298&view=findpost&p=87528

I actually find it interesting the extent to which creationists often disagree with basic Newtonian physics.

I believe the very next post clears the muddy waters.....


"No you said as per using Newtons theory in light of planets, that is what I mean as only a possibility, since we cannot test it to be sure, its merely taken on faith.

As per gravity on Earth, we can test it via experiment by dropping something, though that isn't to test the cause itself, merely to test the phenomena.

As per atomic theory, I am sure that no-one in the 19th century were going around calling it a fact and then using it as a basis to try and destroy Religion (as what Dawkins claims).


My main point I want to make is that evolution has no criteria of falsifiability and when something is observed that defies it an ad hoc hypothesis is added in place, this is the root of my problem with evolution. Another example of an ad hoc hypothesis is the model of punctuated equilibrium (a rehash of the debunked "hopeful monster"), this was made due to no actual verified intermediate fossils. It was claimed that the changes took place so rapidly that there was no fossil evidence to find for such..... Yet how would one KNOW that these changes occured at all if there is no definitive evidence left behind? Its merely making a hypothesis in light of the absence of evidence... Which is not even logical. "

 

[australopithecus]

My main point I want to make is that evolution has no criteria of falsifiability [...]

Find a cat in the Triassic rock strata. You'll falsify evolutionary theory and win a Nobel prize.

Good luck.

 

[malicious_bloke]

My main point I want to make is that evolution has no criteria of falsifiability and when something is observed that defies it an ad hoc hypothesis is added in place, this is the root of my problem with evolution.

Your first phrase contradicts your second, in a way. As a theory, 'evolution' covers a great number of *ad hoc hypotheses* as you term them. The individual hypotheses are each subject to the ravages of experimental data and get rejected or modified as required.

Evolution as a theoretical model can and will be falsified when its key underlying hypotheses are falsified.

Creationists have been trying to do this for decades through the usual deceptive means: citing the bible, trying to carbondate rocks with no carbon in them, quotemining articles to find individual phrases to add to polemics etc but NONE of what they do ultimately provides any experimental data that challenges what scientists have experimentally verified.

 

[Aelyn]

I believe the very next post clears the muddy waters.....


"No you said as per using Newtons theory in light of planets, that is what I mean as only a possibility, since we cannot test it to be sure, its merely taken on faith.

As per gravity on Earth, we can test it via experiment by dropping something, though that isn't to test the cause itself, merely to test the phenomena.

As per atomic theory, I am sure that no-one in the 19th century were going around calling it a fact and then using it as a basis to try and destroy Religion (as what Dawkins claims).

Um, lolwhut... that's not the very next post, it's the one I linked to in the first place. And it is remarkable that you think it clears any muddy water at all but I already addressed that in my reply on EFT at the time.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Another example of an ad hoc hypothesis is the model of punctuated equilibrium (a rehash of the debunked "hopeful monster"), this was made due to no actual verified intermediate fossils. It was claimed that the changes took place so rapidly that there was no fossil evidence to find for such.....

:lol: :facepalm:

And you call yourself a biologist?

 

[gilbo12345]

My main point I want to make is that evolution has no criteria of falsifiability [...]

Find a cat in the Triassic rock strata. You'll falsify evolutionary theory and win a Nobel prize.

Good luck.

There will be no Nobel prize, soft tissue was found in fossils presumed millions of years old, and rather than the Nobel prize the discoverer was attacked by all manner of evolutionists, therefore this claim is simply a farce.

Find an evolutionary mechanism that brings about interdependant cellular systems and you'll actually make evolution scientific.

 

[gilbo12345]

My main point I want to make is that evolution has no criteria of falsifiability and when something is observed that defies it an ad hoc hypothesis is added in place, this is the root of my problem with evolution.

Your first phrase contradicts your second, in a way. As a theory, 'evolution' covers a great number of *ad hoc hypotheses* as you term them. The individual hypotheses are each subject to the ravages of experimental data and get rejected or modified as required.

Evolution as a theoretical model can and will be falsified when its key underlying hypotheses are falsified.

Creationists have been trying to do this for decades through the usual deceptive means: citing the bible, trying to carbondate rocks with no carbon in them, quotemining articles to find individual phrases to add to polemics etc but NONE of what they do ultimately provides any experimental data that challenges what scientists have experimentally verified.

How about when you claim something contradicts something else you actually demonstrate how its contradicting.

If its a theoretical model then how is it claimed to be a "fact"

I've not once cited the Bible hence I have no idea why you claim such now?

How is evolution experimentally verified, I have been asking for evidence of such in the other thread and its simply faith claims... with no experimental basis

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

@gilbo12345
Instead of talking trash about shit you have no clue about, why not actually adress my points first, stop having a cartoon notion of evolution, understand what evolution actually is, then we can give you all the evidence you want. How about that?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

There will be no Nobel prize, soft tissue was found in fossils presumed millions of years old, and rather than the Nobel prize the discoverer was attacked by all manner of evolutionists, therefore this claim is simply a farce.

The discovery of trace soft tissue elements is not a Nobel Prize worthy discovery. It does however make us reevaluate our understanding of how fossilization works. Furthermore, it must be remembered that what Schweitzer et al. discovered was mostly break down products, which had to be demineralized.

In addition, they were not attacked by all manner of evolutionists, they submitted their findings to peer-review, and it was scrutinized for any falsehoods and errors. Again, their discoveries overturned many ideas science had about fossilization. The fact that you cannot distinguish between scrutiny and attacks exposes just how little you understand the scientific arena.

For further reading on this topic, I suggest this thread, this thread, and this thread, where many of the falsehoods of BobEnyart were exposed about the soft tissue discoveries.

Find an evolutionary mechanism that brings about interdependant cellular systems and you'll actually make evolution scientific.

Oh, you mean something like this? I have no doubt you will take issue with this, even though it appears to be exactly what you are asking for, simply because it goes against your preconceived notion.

 

[Dragan Glas]

There will be no Nobel prize, soft tissue was found in fossils presumed millions of years old, and rather than the Nobel prize the discoverer was attacked by all manner of evolutionists, therefore this claim is simply a farce.

No, "soft tissue" is not what creationists think, believe or say it is.

Find an evolutionary mechanism that brings about interdependant cellular systems and you'll actually make evolution scientific.

Apart from He_Who_Is_Nobody's link, there are also these:

Division of Labor Offers Insight Into the Evolution of Multicellular Life

Did Bacteria Spark Evolution of Multicellular Life?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[AronRa]

Why do you run away to somewhere where your minders can bum-rush your opponents?

Seems like a dishonest way of "debating" since it was YOU who made this "challenge", you even mentioned a neutral forum to discuss it on, (one of which I am not familiar with)...

Yet to make things worse you wanted me to adhere to your own redefined words (cough cough... equivocation....), of which I demonstrated how your definitions were incorrect as well as the "logic" behind them was fundamentally flawed, (critical thinker indeed). Rather than admit this fault, you spouted garbage about how Creationists are dishonest... How is it dishonest by showing how your definitions do not fit with the dictionary, as well as showing the contradictory logic for such a thing? If anything I am the honest one here as I am not trying to redefine words, nor am I forcing my own definitions on to you or anyone, I gave clear reasons why I preferred a NEUTRAL source for definitions such as a dictionary as they are not biased, which of course your own definitions will be since you made them yourself.

So much for that "code of honour"..... Running away is very much the cowards option.

I had thought that you'd be a good debater, now I see that its all hype from idiot followers.

I am not redefining anything. I showed what these words really mean and how we can know for sure that they really mean that. I am showing that you rely on misdefined words. Thus all you can have is a fallacious argument. Come back when you have something legit.

Are you serious? You honestly don't believe the garbage you are saying otherwise you're more deluded than I originally thought.

How in the world can I be using "misdefined" words when I am using, and ask you to use an official dictionary?

In effect you are stating that you are better than the dictionary at defining words, sorry Mr Ra you're not that good... Rather than just spout opinions, (like you), I'll actually demonstrate it with evidence, (something you have not done at all in our discussions), since (assertum non est demonstratum), asserting is not demonstration.

The definition you give for faith only states that it is a religious type of "blind faith" with no evidence. However under this definition a man who has faith in his wife, would fall under the same religious blind faith. Or here is the clincher, when you have faith in the fundamental sampling assumptions (fundamental to statistical analysis of data), then that too would be a religious blind faith, or how about your faith in your own ability to reason, (which I believe is overstated to say the least), then that too would be religious blind faith.

Yet of these 3 examples none fit the definition of faith you provide, meaning that you are simply boxing in the definition, (as a trap). The conclusions if one was to adopt your definitions are grave indeed, since anything requires a measure of faith, (even science- see fundamental sampling assumptions as well as others), therefore under your definition science would be "religious". I hope you can see your own faults in this matter.

Now when will this "challenge" take place or are you retracting from this?

Just a reminder, the post where I demonstrate your fallacious "logic".

How could you possibly know why your "definitions" disturb me, let alone know whether they do or not... Lest you're a mind reader or have special powers... Seems like your attempt to pass off as a know-it-all failed. You cannot presume to know what people think.

Consensus of what? Isn't that is what a dictionary is by definition? Why try and re-write the dictionary unless you have an agenda?

Here, I will demonstrate just one of your meager attempts at definition is wrong, (by definition lol).

You claim

Faith: A firm, stoic, and sacred conviction which is both adopted and maintained independent of physical evidence or logical proof.

Here is the actual meaning

faith
[feyth] Show IPA

noun
1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

3.
belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

4.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.

5.
a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith?s=t


2. Complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman".[Wordnet]

4. Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person; "keep the faith"; "they broke faith with their investors".[Wordnet]

7. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth.[Websters]

10. That which is believed on any subject, whether in science, politics, or religion; especially (Theol.), a system of religious belief of any kind; as, the Jewish or Mohammedan faith; and especially, the system of truth taught by Christ; as, the Christian faith; also, the creed or belief of a Christian society or church.[Websters]

13. Credibility or truth.[Websters].

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/faith


See how your definition automatically boxes "faith" as something one ought not to believe... Yet you're totally skipping over the fact that people have faith in their partner, you have faith in your ability to be rational, etc. Faith doesn't just concern Religion, despite what you may believe. Point 10 of the second website quoted is a very good one depicting that EVERYTHING we believe in, (even evolution etc), relies on a measure of faith.

Boxing in the definition is intellectually dishonesty, even more so when you ask me to agree to these spurious definitions before hand. There is nothing wrong with a dictionary, and if your "defintions" are defined by dictionaries, (despite where I've shown this is not the case), then there is no need at all to enforce others to follow your definitions, since your definitions are (apparantly) based on those dictionaries anyway. Meaning its illogical of you to try and re-write the dictionary whilst claiming that your definitions are based on the dictionary, but you do so because the dictionary is not good enough... See the contradiction here?

Who reviewed your definitions? Like-minded atheists? How could they spot any contradictions if they are like-minded? Its the same as asking a Christian to pick out problems with the Bible, or an evolutionist to pick out problems with evolution. All people are biased towards their own point of view, ergo your "peer review" by people who are of the same opinion as you is barely worth the time.

It is wrong because YOU are the one who has compiled them, leave that work to the multitudes of experts who do that for a living, and who actually have the authority to do so, unlike you who is just a person trying to re-write the dictionary. Additionally how is a reputable dictionary inappropriate, how about you provide evidence for such, if a scientific dictionary is required then feel free to use one, as long as its an official dictionary not one of your making.

I am talking about using neutral sources since the people who made the dictionary do not care about the debate between design and chance, meaning they "do not have a dog in this fight".. You on the other hand is taking part in this meaning any attempt of you trying to redefine words will most likely be done so to try and further your goals here. Merely stating that a dictionary is not neutral does nothing, you need evidence for your claims.

Please demonstrate the difference of spontaneous generation and abiogenesis since they imply a very very similar conclusion. Life from non-life, (thus defying the Law of Biogenesis, trust evolutionists to try and defy natural law lol).

What goal posts have I shifted? Shifting blame is a very common "tactic" however it won't work. As far as I have seen YOU are the one attempting to create his own defintions of words rather than use the established neutral definitions in an established official source... WIth the logically invalid reason being because you feel the dictionaries are inaccurate yet you claim that your definitions are based on dictionaries. But if not then what? What measure of objectivity and fairness is there when you get to define the words being used?

Which terms have I misunderstood? Your words are not golden, just because you say something doesn't make it true, (unless you have this amazing power to make things true by saying it, and if so please say that I have $1,000,000 in the bank lol). In other words where is your evidence that I have misunderstood anything at all? We haven't even started and you're claiming I misunderstand stuff, what stuff?
(this seems to be a reoccuring thing where you make spurious claims but do not give any evidence for them... Yet I get told that evidence is the be-all for evolutionists?... oops)

Creationist mentors? Where are you getting this crap? I am a science student, I used to believe in evolution, however the more I CRITICALLY looked at the details, (the inner workings of the cell is most important for me), I saw this glaring hole. Whenever I asked my lecturers about these holes they'd skip over them and not deal with the problems, this was my escape from the illusion of evolution.

Evolution may seem great when you are comparing large animals to each other, but when you go to the molecular level evolution has no leg to stand on there, there are no mechanisms proposed there are no results to be gleaned there is nothing.

So now that you've cut-and-pasted your previous mistake, you should go back and re-read my correction of it.

You corrected nothing, (and your inability to demonstrate it here is telling of this), I showed how your definition of "Faith" was incomplete and thus boxed the definition, you never addressed this, instead you waffled on about how Creationists are dishonest. Even if that were true how in the world does it address the issue I brought up and your incoherent logic which brought it about? (Red herring much?)

However care to address my initial reply as that was my actual reply, the cut and paste was a reminder where I (unlike you), prefer to give evidence for my claims rather than waffle opinion as if it was fact.

Again I ask, how is it dishonest of me to ask you to hold to the definitions which are agreed to by EVERYONE (well except you it seems), within the framework of the dictionary. I even said that a scientific dictionary could be used if a general one isn't good enough, just as long as we do not use your fallacious definitions.

I ask again how is this dishonest?


Additionally care to address the three examples of faith which do not fit your definition, how can you claim to be demonstrating its actual meaning when it doesn't fit with the rest of realities' use of the word, if your definition doesn't fit within reality perhaps your definition is incorrect or isn't the full definition (which I demonstrated before which you have yet to reply to).

However this is all peripheral to the fact that this so-called "challenge" hasn't even started yet... Not much of a challenge if you wish to quibble over the definition of words and whine when I will only accept the official definitions as per dictionaries.


I am not going to re-explain what I have already re-explained. Since you were neither able nor willing to understand it the first time, then there is no point in my cutting-and-pasting the same explanations again. They're already in your in-box. Review them until you get it.



More mental gymnastics, (if only it was an Olympic sport you'd be a Gold winner).

As I said you explained NOTHING, so asking me to re-read it will explain nothing, honestly you need to read my posts. You never addressed my demonstration of your definitions being flawed, you never addressed my demonstration of your logic for even redefining them as flawed, you never addressed how I showed that your definitions do not fit within reality, meaning that you literally have explained nothing.

All you have done is claimed that Creationists are dishonest and that I use "misdefined" words, as per your reply... (Again stating something doesn't mean its demonstrated, opinions are not facts and you need to give evidence).

"I am not redefining anything. I showed what these words really mean and how we can know for sure that they really mean that. I am showing that you rely on misdefined words."

I have asked you to explain your reasoning here since you are in effect claiming that my use of a dictionary results in misdefined words. Does this mean that you consider only what you say is right to the effect that official sources are deemed "misdefined", someone has a "god complex".


Additionally as I said this is an aside from this challenge, one which you made and which judging from your replies on here you wish to duck out of.

Well that debate was supposed to happen right here on this thread. You're the one who seems to have a problem with that.

 

[Laurens]

How is evolution experimentally verified, I have been asking for evidence of such in the other thread and its simply faith claims... with no experimental basis

Here and here just to name two examples with only a quick google search.

You really ought to get your facts straight before making claims like that.