Freedom
Registered User

Freedom, Just so you will know Xcaliber lost the bet, here's the link to the post that confirms he lost.

http://www.4forums.com/political/cur...tml#post457721

Cheers... Easyrider

Freedom, Just so you will know Xcaliber lost the bet, here's the link to the post that confirms he lost.

http://www.4forums.com/political/cur...tml#post457721

Cheers... Easyrider

QUOTE=Bennedict;423308]welcome to 4forums, where ad hominems are used in every argument, because theyre funny.[/QUOTE]

Here is a summation of a single string in the thread in which I was 'whipped'.

This string is the failures and contradictions of benedict to answer a simple question.

For the record, there are four valid answers to choose from when answering a boolean value question.

1. Yes
2. No
3. That is not a boolean value
4. I don't know

Bennedict switched between 1 and 4 while admitting that he failed to support 1.

Bold = Me, Italics = Bennedict

Summation:

1. IC cannot support ID. Can one support ID with IC?
2. Behe, Dembski, and johnson think so.
3. Can one support ID with IC?
4. I answered that already.
5. No you didn't, can one support ID with IC?
6. Yes
7. Show me how please.
8. (Fails and admits the argument presented is a known fallacy)
9. You failed.
10. They failed too.
11. Can you support ID with IC?
12. I failed, they failed; but no those who ID support IC think IC supports ID; prove me wrong.
13. Can IC support ID?
14. according to ID supporters.
15. Can IC support ID?
16. I will not answer
17. I am in no position to make the claim that IC supports ID.
18. I have no position on whether IC supports ID.
19. As I said I only ask that you support what you have claimed.
20. my claim was that IC is used to support ID.

Now let me explain what I was thinking at each point.

1. IC cannot support ID. Can one support ID with IC?
2. Behe, Dembski, and johnson think so.

That is an invalid answer, that someone thinks something can be done does not necessarily imply it can. The question has not been answered ask again.

3. Can one support ID with IC?
4. I answered that already.
5. No you didn't, can one support ID with IC?
6. Yes

Valid answer, but not correct in my opinion. To continue debate identify the logic bennedict uses to arrive at this conclusion.

7. Show me how please.
8. (Fails and admits the argument presented is a known fallacy)
9. You failed.

Expecting either a new argument or for bennedict to retract his answer.

10. They failed too.

They failed too he declares proudly? Perhaps there was a misunderstanding and he didn't really mean YES. Ask again but make sure to specify who is being asked.

11. Can you support ID with IC?
12. I failed, they failed; but no those who ID support IC think IC supports ID; prove me wrong.

Presents challenge to prove no one thinks they can use IC to support ID? This is a red herring, I never claimed any limitations on anyone's beliefs. Refocus -> ask again, this time do not include an actor to make it clear that the question is being asked in the most absolute sense of logical truth.

13. Can IC support ID?
14. according to ID supporters.

That is not a valid answer, the fact that according to ID supporters IC can support ID does not mean it does. Ask again.

15. Can IC support ID?
16. I will not answer
17. I am in no position to make the claim that IC supports ID.
18. I have no position on whether IC supports ID.

I don't know is a valid answer, it however contradicts his first answer of YES. To avoid future confusion make it clear that it is not my policy to ask anyone to support any but their own beliefs nor answer questions for others.

19. As I said I only ask that you support what you have claimed.
my claim was that IC is used to support ID.

Disbelief, he changes is position again; it's back to YES, a YES he never supported in the first place.


Source Quotes:

Originally Posted by Freedom

You behave as if I have to demonstrate that no IDer has ever tried to use IC to support ID.

I do not and I have made no claims that one could not(try).

All I said is that they cannot.

So I ask you again can one support ID with IC?

IC cannot support ID. Can one support ID with IC?

Originally Posted by Bennedict

ridiculous.

if IC cannot support ID, ID has absolutely nothing going for it, right? including their supporters of IC, since all of them with the exception of you use it to support ID. Behe is wrong, Dembski is wrong, Johnson is wrong, every ID supporter is wrong for using IC, because FREEDOM THE GREAT thinks it's wrong.

Behe, Dembski, and johnson think so.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Can one support ID with IC?

Can one support ID with IC?

Originally Posted by Bennedict

ive already answered that question. post #101. Behe reiterates. stop asking me.

I answered that already.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I reread it and you did not answer the question.

Since it is either three or two characters I ask you to repost it if you still insist you did.

Can one support ID with IC?

No you didn't, can one support ID with IC?

Originally Posted by Bennedict

can IC be used to support ID? yes, its the ID proponent's main argument.

Yes

Originally Posted by Freedom

Alright, assume IC is a correct analysis.

Evolution cannot explain life.

Please support ID.

Show me how please.

Fails

Originally Posted by Freedom

You failed to support ID. Do you want to try again?

You failed.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

so Behe fails as well? Dembski fails too? how about Johnson, he fails also?

i would agree, they are failures, but their arguments are very similar to the one i posted.

They failed too.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Can you support ID with IC?

Can you support ID with IC?

Originally Posted by Bennedict

no. those who support ID support IC as well, and use it as their main argument. prove me wrong! show me a testimony from one of the ID big shots; Behe, Johnson, Dembski... that says otherwise. if you dont, my argument stands and yours falls. again.

I failed, they failed; but no those who ID support IC and think IC supports ID; prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by Freedom

Can IC support ID?

Originally Posted by Bennedict

according to ID supporters.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

youve already asked that question. ive answered it 3 or more times.

Originally Posted by Freedom

My count is zero.

I ask again, can one support ID with IC?

Originally Posted by Bennedict

freedom,

TWO of your posts have been deleted due to repetition. you still havent learned. you then ask a third time.

you still havent learned.

I will not answer so I started to reported your posts. (implication I am smart enough to evade the question in a unique way so it does not look like repeated information)

Originally Posted by Bennedict

from an ID perspective, IC does support ID. from my own perspective, i am in no position to make such a claim - i associate with neither the IC argument nor ID. i can only speak from testimonies of ID advocates, and the testimonies are clear - IC not only can be used to support ID, but it is the ID proponent's main argument. IC is the only thing supporting ID.

I am in no position to make the claim that IC supports ID.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

ive already mentioned why i will not input my own position - i have none. i am a strict evolutionist, you might as well ask me which passages in the Qur'an i like the best.

I have no position on whether IC supports ID.

Originally Posted by Freedom

As I said I only ask that you support what you have claimed.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

this is absurd. that is a totally different topic. my claim was that IC is used to support ID.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/619/2/914/fulltext

Overview of my argument:

The common view of evolution is that it's processes explain all improvement over time in lifeforms.

I pointed out a concept called irreducible complexity, now if you google this you will find many articles claiming to debunk the idea.

I have read many of them and can assure you they are written without understanding exactly what it is they are refuting, a symptom shared in some degree by members of this forum.

A irreducibly complex system is said to be one which has several parts all of which are crucial to the function.

To be extremely brief it claims there is a difference between improving a function and creating a function.

The reason for this should become clear once you consider the mechanism of evolution which is Random mutation filtered by natural selection.

For evolution to guide any genetic movement every step of that movement must give benefit to the organism.

So when exactly will natural selection stop working?

Never, it doesn't "stop working" but we can say (by definition) that it will not move DNA in a direction that does not have benefit all along the way.

Therefore if one attempts to explain a system using evolution one must explain how it first began to function.

The gist of the argument is that there are no beneficiary intermediates between a non-functional/different function sequence of DNA and a novel function accomplishing sequence except by chance.

The conclusion is that every novel function even if just it's most primitive form must have formed fully in a single mutation else a series with the exact same odds of the former.

This argument was not defeated but the debate was shifted, after it was finally admitted that this was the case, that there is a fundamental difference between evolving a fluke from a limb (modification with constant intermediate benefit) and evolving mussels (novel) the last tag of the argument "except by pure chance" was latched on to.

It was claimed that the evolutionary mechanism was not required to form novel function in any kind of predictable or methodical way, in fact the only way natural selection comes into this new view of evolution is to preserve a function once it appeared.

While this appears conceptually similar to the preserving of a sequence of small mutations it is not.

For every base pair changed in a single mutation the number of possible outcomes grows very fast.

Preserving 2 or 3 base pairs that help an organism is entirely the same as preserving 200 or 300 base pairs, but if natural selection is not given a chance to choose until the end it does not have the same effect as the gradual change, where it is allowed to guide movement by rejecting directions which are not beneficial.

It is the analogous to stopping and asking directions at every turn in a maze as opposed to randomly turning corners.

If every time you ask you get an answer "warmer" "colder" you are almost infinitely more likely to find the prize than the random turning, however if you asked for directions right in front of the prize you would get "very warm"

The last answer does not mean you got there with help, it does not mean you were guided.

I called this analysis of genetic movement guided mutation.

This however is a tangential debate on whether random chance could have produced life, it is similar to the origin debate in it's premises.

It is however certain that no matter what the out come of this debate evolution has already been debunked as a producer of novel function, therefore it cannot be a theory of the advancement of life but only a theory of the refinement and repurposing of life.

and those are the highlights

An exhibition, the formal fallacy posted and maintained by gansao shortly before asserting that I lost the argument. This level of arrogance and dishonor may need to be studied.

Originally Posted by gansao

A belief system is a system that you believe in.
Believing in science does not make science a belief system.

Originally Posted by gansao

If you accept that science is not a system then there is no contradiction.
If you believe that science is a 'system' there is no contradiction.

Let A = A belief system.
Let B = A system that you believe in.

'Believing in science' = 'A system you believe in' provided science is a system.
'does not make science a belief system.' = 'Not a belief system'.

Then the first statement says

A IS B

and the second is

B IS NOT A

Unfortunately identity is commutative. (the scope here the domain of the word 'science')

Originally Posted by gansao

You seem to be losing the argument so are desperate to change is emphasis a little

Do you realize how rare formal logic fallacies are?

Originally Posted by gansao

Second sentence...I meant what I posted

Then I regret to inform you I don't know what you meant because you used the word 'need' in a vacuum.

Need for what?

Originally Posted by gansao

You are the one that linked science to a belief system Freedom.. 'It's a method based on a 'belief system', namely rationality in epistemology'.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by gansao

I have been saying it is NOT a belief system

Which as far as I am concerned can only be caused by three possible scenarios.
1. We are not using the same meaning for the phrase belief system, or even the word belief.

2. You are deliberately playing mind games for some alterior motive.

3. You haven't a clue what I am saying and are merely contradicting me on the premise that if I think it, it's wrong.

Quotes by denialist:

[QUOTE=Sigma;402985]And brains are survival engines, not truth detectors. If self-deception promotes fitness (and it does), then the brain lies. Truth doesn't matter, only survival and fitness.

Quotes by evolutionist:

"Internal fog", a science unbound by rules.

Originally Posted by Bennedict

two words do not combine to make a super word with a super definition.

just because "selection" and "event" have their own definitions does not mean when combined, their definitions combine as well.

why do you set yourself a rule for everything? biology especially is not bound by rules. i would like to stop this conversation because you just cant get over the fact that not everything abides by the rules you set for everything.

Quotes by environmentalist:

Quotes by relativists:

Quotes by pragmatists:

Quotes by theocrats:

Quotes by collectivist: