Here comes another one...

[AronRa]

Firstly yet again you haven't addressed my points.

Yes I have -in the first post of this thread.

It must be great for you to simply ignore when people demonstrate when you are wrong and simply hand wave it away,

I wouldn't know. I'll have to take your word for it.

though as I said it undermines what you said in a video about your "code of honour".

Its disturbing that you don't even admit these problems,

You mean the ones I already addressed and corrected earlier in this thread?

perhaps I was correct in my analysis of this God complex you seem to have.

No, you're going to have to include that in your so far perfect failure rate.

At least when someone proves me wrong I have the guts to admit it,

Then why didn't you?

you on the other hand... well I have your replies here as testament to your actions.

Then I am vindicated.

Actually you initially said the challenge would be on a Christian forum to which I agreed, you then changed it to your pet forum to which I did not agree. Meaning that you should stick to the initial venue we agreed upon, there was no actual reason to change venues.

I never suggested we do this on ChristianForums, and I explained why I'll never do another debate there. Learn to read for comprehension.

Changing the venue to one where your supporters can bum-rush your opponents simply is the epitome of cowardness, and was what my recent reply to you was about meaning we have come full circle.

There will be no 'bum rush' here, like there would have been on evolutionfairytale.com. If you actually had a valid argument -which we both already know you don't, then you wouldn't hesitate to share it in public forum, and this would be a fine one to that purpose. I fear no venue the way that you obviously do. I started out on ChristianForums remember? So don't try to project your own cowardice onto me. You're the one who tried to change the venue to evolutionfairytale.com, a site that is as biased as it is possible to be. Your hypocrisy is showing.

Your challenge was limited to you, not a forum full or your followers.

The other participants on this forum are hardly "my followers". There are few people here who even like me, and they'll still scrutinize and correct me whenever or however they can. So this venue will do. All that matters is that everyone else gets to see what you say. So stop sending me private messages. If you had a debate to bring, you would have brought it by now. Instead you're still copypasting the same misdefined term that I already corrected months ago, and repeating the same questions I already answered last year. Is that really all you've got?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Wow. Gilbo12345 has quite a chip on his shoulder. Since he is a student of science, I cannot wait to read his scientific refutation of evolution, which he should be submitting for his PhD thesis. Anything short of that would expose him for what he is, another lowly person with delusions of grandeur.

 

[australopithecus]

Gilbo seems blissfully unaware, despite claiming to have read the Enyart debate, that we can limit debates to two people. Bum rush, indeed. Though now he's crawled off back to EvoFairtlytale it's not likely he wants or cares about a debate.

 

[AronRa]

Can't respond without your helpers?

I guess no reply will be good enough for this guy. We can debate on a neutral forum only as long as it is biased in his favor, and then we can only use terms which he knows have been misdefined to his benefit. What is it this guy is so afraid of?

 

[australopithecus]

Gilbo is fully aware that he can have a one on one debate here. At this point he's just being childish.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

At least when someone proves me wrong I have the guts to admit it,

:lol:

So when you said this:

gilbo12345[/url]"]

(Good catch, Dragan Glas)

Gilbo12345, if you take that definition, and recheck the definition of Fact #3, you'll see that it is analogous to definition #5, and follows your own rules for context. I believe we are done here now.

So I'm a redneck now? Thats not an abusive comment....

And it was subsequently pointed out that you were wrong you admitted to this mistake, correct? That is funny, because nowhere on that thread was there a post from you owning this mistake (a trivial one at that), yet you expect us to believe that you will actually admit larger mistakes?

 

[Dave B.]

I came here from EFF after being banned twice for "equivocation" and "time-wasting" so I'm familiar with Gilbo. He's a YEC that pretends to be a college student majoring in some sort of biology. That, of course, makes him an expert on evolution. I'm quite surprised he was brave enough to bring his ridiculous, semantical, anti-evolution arguments somewhere he can't hide behind moderators that ban anyone who disagrees with him. I notice he didn't last long. :lol:

Anyway, I wouldn't waste your time "debating" him if he does show back up. His arguments usually go something like this.

1. He misunderstands some part of the theory and then claims that evolution is impossible because he cannot understand how X could happen (argument from incredulity).
2. Someone corrects his misunderstanding of X at which point he incorrectly accuses them of logical fallacies, begins arguing over definitions and eventually resorts to the infamous Ken Ham "were you there" argument.
3. The person who corrected him is banned and he claims victory.

 

[Prolescum]

I notice he didn't last long.

He's still technically a member here

 

[gilbo12345]

Can't respond without your helpers?

I guess no reply will be good enough for this guy. We can debate on a neutral forum only as long as it is biased in his favor, and then we can only use terms which he knows have been misdefined to his benefit. What is it this guy is so afraid of?

Really we can now? When I first accepted you're "challenge" on youtube you made the following requests.

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/

I agreed to use that forum however later you rescind that debate forum in favour of this one here, (where you have people to bum-rush your opponents... As is evidenced by this very thread...)

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/

Additionally I mentioned how your "offerings to the atheist dictionary" were in fact not fully correct. I demonstrated this quite clearly to you, and which you have mentioned in a post here, YET my points from such are STILL unanswered.

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.

I cannot believe that you people can tout around claiming to be "rational" despite never answering the initial points of this entire thread?

I have demonstrated how your definitions are not the FULL and thus correct definition, as I said you are boxing it in

As seen below

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


Your definition only takes in 2 and 5 (and mixes them together) . You cannot deny that your definition is lacking.



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?

You claimed that dictionaries are not sufficient for scientific words, yet when I asked you how do you know that your definitions you created are indeed correct you stated that they fit within what established dictionaries claim... How can you not see the contradiction here?

Additionally is "faith" a scientific word? Why then do you feel the need to redefine it when you claimed your reason for doing so was due to dictionaries not getting the scientific words correct? (Again another contradiction).

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.

Speaks for itself, an evolutionist will never point out issues with evolution to the exact same degree a theist will never point out issues with their Holy book.


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.

As evidenced by the fact that your definition page is called "offerings to the atheist dictionary"... Why not use a standard OFFICIAL dictionary? That is all I was asking for... Is that too much for you to handle?

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.

Again is my asking for a third-party source rather than forcing me to use YOURS such a bad thing?

 

[gilbo12345]

I came here from EFF after being banned twice for "equivocation" and "time-wasting" so I'm familiar with Gilbo. He's a YEC that pretends to be a college student majoring in some sort of biology. That, of course, makes him an expert on evolution. I'm quite surprised he was brave enough to bring his ridiculous, semantical, anti-evolution arguments somewhere he can't hide behind moderators that ban anyone who disagrees with him. I notice he didn't last long. :lol:

Anyway, I wouldn't waste your time "debating" him if he does show back up. His arguments usually go something like this.

1. He misunderstands some part of the theory and then claims that evolution is impossible because he cannot understand how X could happen (argument from incredulity).
2. Someone corrects his misunderstanding of X at which point he incorrectly accuses them of logical fallacies, begins arguing over definitions and eventually resorts to the infamous Ken Ham "were you there" argument.
3. The person who corrected him is banned and he claims victory.

Perhaps you can post up some evidence for your claims Dave, lest you fall into the common evolutionist fallacy of "assertum non est demonstratum"

To assert is not to demonstrate

1- Quotes? I've never used an argument from incredulity, in fact I use what we know about Biology to demonstrate how evolution cannot logically occur. (That is if you bother to read my posts on EFF)

2- If I falsely accused anyone of anything on EFF feel free to point it out, the readers have brains enough to see whether someone is correct or not. I was caught out on something here (I misread a person's reply and thought they were making an insult), I was corrected and accepted it right away.... Because it was demonstrated, not merely asserted.

3- When have I ever "claimed victory".... Such is a childish action...

 

[gilbo12345]

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.

An official dictionary is much less biased than a dictionary written by you or I.... Why is using dictionaries such a bad thing for atheists?

Would you accept a dictionary I made myself? No..

Why then must I accept one written by Mr Ra?

 

[gilbo12345]

At least when someone proves me wrong I have the guts to admit it,

And it was subsequently pointed out that you were wrong you admitted to this mistake, correct? That is funny, because nowhere on that thread was there a post from you owning this mistake (a trivial one at that), yet you expect us to believe that you will actually admit larger mistakes?

I thought I did?
I guess if its not there then its not there, surely my posts cannot be altered

I fully accept that I misread that comment, kudos to you

 

[gilbo12345]

Gilbo is fully aware that he can have a one on one debate here. At this point he's just being childish.

Huh? And you know my inner thinking how?

Assertum non est demonstratum...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Really we can now? When I first accepted you're "challenge" on youtube you made the following requests.

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/

I agreed to use that forum however later you rescind that debate forum in favour of this one here, (where you have people to bum-rush your opponents... As is evidenced by this very thread...)

Why would you agree to use that forum, when it was never offered as a place to have a discussion? AronRa gave you that link because it is “an easy-to-source occasion wherein [AronRa’s] challenge was initially accepted.” I know creationists have a poor reading comprehension, but you seem to take the cake.

As for the “bum-rush” accusation: you do not have to address anyone else but AronRa. A subforum here allows only two people to comment, if that is what you wish.

Additionally I mentioned how your "offerings to the atheist dictionary" were in fact not fully correct. I demonstrated this quite clearly to you, and which you have mentioned in a post here, YET my points from such are STILL unanswered.

Still arguing semantics, I see gilbo12345. Luckily, AronRa did address this:

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.

Amazing how you were unable to address any of that even though you quoted from that very post.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

An official dictionary is much less biased than a dictionary written by you or I.... Why is using dictionaries such a bad thing for atheists?

Would you accept a dictionary I made myself? No..

Why then must I accept one written by Mr Ra?

hackenslash[/url]"]Well, a slight problem here, namely that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

 

[gilbo12345]

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.

I believe I already have my facts in order. However I would ask you to discuss your links rather than merely post a link and that is it. Its basic courtesy.


First link:

Fish = Fish = Still Fish.... Where are the experiments verifying bacteria to you evolution?

Additionally where are the experiments verifying that variation WITHIN a species can lead to a totally new organism? In other words how do variances of an established trait lead to large-scale structural changes?

What experiments verify this assumption? Considering that such large-scale changes are deemed to occur over "millions of years" there can be no experiment to verify that small changes really can lead to larger ones... Its simply assumed on faith.

If you have evidence to support this assumption then by all means please post it, however I only accept EMPIRICAL experiments as Biology is an empirical science. Additionally when you do find this evidence please post it here, since I discuss this issue with your friend Gnug, (who after many many posts of mental gymnastics finally admitted that small to large changes are assumed by evolutionists on the basis that it seems logical to them).

http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=5378

Feel free to take part in the poll the question is "Does assuming the conclusion count as actual evidence?"


Second link:

E.coli = E.coli = E.coli = Still E.coli

As asked before where is the evidence supporting the assumption that small variances in an established trait leads to large-scale structural changes?

I am glad you brought this example up

Here are some basics. Taxonomy for bacteria is different to animals and plants, since the physical differences of the bacteria are limited. Hence taxonomy defined by metabolic pathways the bacteria can undergo, thus this is linked to the DNA that the bacterium has

Now, the reason I say that classifying bacteria is futile is that bacteria have the ability to take in DNA from the environment, and incorporate it within their own DNA.. Hence, a bacterium has the ability to change "species" multiple times in a single cell lifetime. This fact completely undermines the reliability of what we determine as species.

Furthermore, the process these cells undergo is regulated within the cell itself, hence, this mechanism cannot be regarded as "evolution" since the mechanism itself cannot have evolved from itself.

The long term experiment is claimed to produce a different pathway, but the ability to degrade citrate is not new. In fact, it is already utilized in metabolism of pyruvate in the citric acid cycle... Considering this is basic biochemistry, it seems there is some mis-information here.... Here we see the evolutionists see some slim chance and jump on it, without fully testing it, only to find that the chance has failed...

This quote sums it up better than I can

"Now the popularist treatments of this research (e.g. in New Scientist) give the impression that the E. coli developed the ability to metabolize citrate, whereas it supposedly could not do so before. However, this is clearly not the case, because the citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid (TCA), or Krebs, cycle (all names for the same thing) generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates.5
Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.<a href="http://creation.com/...coli#endRef6">6 This suite of genes (operon) is normally only activated under anaerobic conditions. this would be the sort of thing that mutations are good at: destroying things



So what happened? It is not yet clear from the published information, but a likely scenario is that mutations jammed the regulation of this operon so that the bacteria produce citrate transporter regardless of the oxidative state of the bacterium’s environment (that is, it is permanently switched on). This can be likened to having a light that switches on when the sun goes down—a sensor detects the lack of light and turns the light on. A fault in the sensor could result in the light being on all the time. That is the sort of change we are talking about.
Another possibility is that an existing transporter gene, such as the one that normally takes up tartrate,3 which does not normally transport citrate, mutated such that it lost specificity and could then transport citrate into the cell. Such a loss of specificity is also an expected outcome of random mutations. A loss of specificity equals a loss of information, but evolution is supposed to account for the creation of new information; information that specifies the enzymes and cofactors in new biochemical pathways, how to make feathers and bone, nerves, or the components and assembly of complex motors such as ATP synthase, for example."

http://creation.com/...igesting-e-coli

 

[gilbo12345]

Really we can now? When I first accepted you're "challenge" on youtube you made the following requests.

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/

I agreed to use that forum however later you rescind that debate forum in favour of this one here, (where you have people to bum-rush your opponents... As is evidenced by this very thread...)

Why would you agree to use that forum, when it was never offered as a place to have a discussion? AronRa gave you that link because it is “an easy-to-source occasion wherein [AronRa’s] challenge was initially accepted.” I know creationists have a poor reading comprehension, but you seem to take the cake.


That was where the challenge was taking place earlier is it not?

As for the “bum-rush” accusation: you do not have to address anyone else but AronRa. A subforum here allows only two people to comment, if that is what you wish.

Additionally I mentioned how your "offerings to the atheist dictionary" were in fact not fully correct. I demonstrated this quite clearly to you, and which you have mentioned in a post here, YET my points from such are STILL unanswered.

Still arguing semantics, I see gilbo12345. Luckily, AronRa did address this:

What semantics? Demonstrating his definition is lacking and he has contradictory reasons as to its verification and reason for writing it is not semantics... Or do contradictions not matter to atheists?

My definitions were subjected to review by anyone who could show where or how some correction was required.

Great I just did, I compared it to the official dictionaries and demonstrated how your definition is lacking

You're welcome to try your hand, but if you can't do that, (and we both already know you can't)

You know my capabilities as well as what I think... I guess being a "rational" atheist allows you to claim whatever you want about your opponents...

then since I have already shown that those are the accurate definitions in the relevant context, then that's what we will use.

How? All you have done is said they were, again assertum non est demonstratum.. To assert is not to demonstrate. Lest I can claim I can fly with my magical gumboots and need to demonstrate their power.

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.

How is posting an official dictionary "misrepresented" or "misdefined". If anything it is YOU who is misrepresenting since you are attempting to redefine the dictionary

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.

Wow you got one right... This has nothing to do with the example I gave you demonstrating that your definition for that example was incorrect. Red herring much?

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.

SO the word "faith" is a scientific term now is it?

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.

Remember what? I cannot recall you made a mention of such before. However this has nothing to do with my example... Again Red herring much?

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.

Where did I do that? Me quoting the dictionary is not mixing anything... Its simply quoting an official dictionary (two actually)

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.

And? Your point?

So what I have done is strip away irrelevant contexts from this topic. I haven't boxed anything in.

Yes you just admitted to boxing in the definition... By striping away other contexts you are by definition boxing it in... On what authority do you have to do such? Are you the arbiter of words? This is called cherry picking

Instead I've sourced more than just one dictionary, and more than just dictionaries; I've sourced every definitive authority on that term.

Except for cherry-picking what you want out of them... As you admitted to above...

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.

Everytime you or I do an experiment we have faith that our results are an example of the reality.

You have faith that fossils are indicative of an evolutionary process despite not having experimental data to demonstrate that evolution really was the cause

You have faith that there is no God in that you have no evidence to demonstrate that there is no God.
- demonstrating something is logically incoherent is evidence against that thing
- Our inability to observe a second moon in the sky is evidence against a second moon




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NzFr4lM-lc

All of my beliefs are based on reason instead.

As I mentioned before, and was not addressed.... Fundamental sampling assumption... Ability to do reason, you cannot reason that you can do reason without first assuming and having faith that you have the capacity to do reason...

So this is "reason"able?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK_54S-weiU

What reasoning do you claim that there is no God? You know that using the lack of evidence for something is Argument from ignorance? (Despite the fact that there is evidence, just not scientific evidence, cosmological argument, teleological argument, fine-tunning argument, moral argument, argument from contingency, ontological argument, etc) [/colour]

That is how our philosophies differ.

Amazing how you were unable to address any of that even though you quoted from that very post.

Sigh IF you bothered to READ my points you would see that Mr Ra never addressed them... You think that any reply means its a refutation?

I already pointed out that his "review" means nothing since it is done by like-minded people who will not pick out issues with his definitions

I already demonstrated how his definition is lacking by comparing it to an official dictionary, him claiming I cannot demonstrate how he is wrong when I already have done so is intellectually dishonest.

Faith is not a scientific word, so why try and redefine it under the pretense that dictionaries get scientific words incorrect?

If dictionaries get words incorrect how can he claim that he uses dictionaries as verification for his definitions?

 

[Isotelus]

Fish = Fish = Still Fish.... Where are the experiments verifying bacteria to you evolution?

In light of all this discussion on dictionaries and what not, would you please provide a definition of what a fish is, i.e., what traits are characteristic of fish as a group?

 

[gilbo12345]

Gilbo seems blissfully unaware, despite claiming to have read the Enyart debate, that we can limit debates to two people. Bum rush, indeed. Though now he's crawled off back to EvoFairtlytale it's not likely he wants or cares about a debate.

I was talking about me... Perhaps consider all the off-topic posts in this thread (like all of yours)...

Again how can you claim to know what I think? Keep pretending you have those atheist super-powers like you did on EFF....

 

[gilbo12345]

An official dictionary is much less biased than a dictionary written by you or I.... Why is using dictionaries such a bad thing for atheists?

Would you accept a dictionary I made myself? No..

Why then must I accept one written by Mr Ra?

hackenslash[/url]"]Well, a slight problem here, namely that dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive.

And? Considering that I only just made the statement you are quoting how can you imply that Hackenslash replied to it. Additionally how does Hack's comment do anything to address my own?

Do you really think it is fair that I am forced to adhere to a dictionary made solely by an atheist and am chided when I ask to use THIRD PARTY sources?

On EFF we allow third party sources as long as they are creditable, (and Mr Ra cherry picking his own definitions as he admitted is not creditable).

Why does Mr Ra not allow unbiased official dictionaries?