(November 15, 2014 at 7:28 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 7:20 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Actually, both. Before the fight I was prepared for an all out war...I was preparing to punch, kick, elbow, hit with chairs, poles, and bats...but instead I get a referee in the ring telling me that elbows, chairs, poles, and bats are prohibited...I can only punch

Oh, so you were just lying when you said the rules I directed you to sounded good and you agreed to play by them? Because, to be clear, you never communicated to me that you had a different idea in mind, you just agreed to follow the rules. If you want to bear your analogy out fully, it'd be that you were happy enough to punch, kick, etc, but you would only do so if your opponent was restricted to punches.

See, what you can't do is characterize the rules as unfair when you were quite happy to let me alone follow them while you went off to do whatever you want. That just means you didn't think the rules were unfair consistently, just when they were applied to you. It means you were quite happy to walk into an unfair fight, just so long as the advantage was yours alone.

As the PM exchanges between yourself, myself, and H_M have been posted to the debate thread, anyone who cares is free to see exactly what happened.

I'll leave it at that.

(November 15, 2014 at 7:28 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 7:20 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Actually, both. Before the fight I was prepared for an all out war...I was preparing to punch, kick, elbow, hit with chairs, poles, and bats...but instead I get a referee in the ring telling me that elbows, chairs, poles, and bats are prohibited...I can only punch

Oh, so you were just lying when you said the rules I directed you to sounded good and you agreed to play by them?

More likely he just didn't really think any agreement he made with a known god-hater was binding. You know, being a proud apologist pretty much everything is fair play .. and even more effective if your opponent keeps his agreements.

Apologist... what else can be said?

(November 15, 2014 at 7:20 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 12:15 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: A laughable misunderstanding of the sequence of events.

You don't even know -- or you deliberately chose to ignore -- the standard format for debate.

Tell us again how educated you are.

Actually, both. Before the fight I was prepared for an all out war...I was preparing to punch, kick, elbow, hit with chairs, poles, and bats...but instead I get a referee in the ring telling me that elbows, chairs, poles, and bats are prohibited...I can only punch

It is ok, tho..he can get intellectually owned on the threads.

Liar, and not a very good one at that.

The rules were set out for you to both to follow in a standard format - opening statement, rebuttals, conclusion. Simple. It's a standard format used in almost every formal debate.

Seems like the only good thing you can do is present the worse possible case for espousing your particular form of Christian apologetics.

(November 16, 2014 at 4:51 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Liar, and not a very good one at that.

Man please. I didn't lie about anything. What the hell is there for me to lie for?

(November 16, 2014 at 4:51 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: The rules were set out for you to both to follow in a standard format - opening statement, rebuttals, conclusion. Simple. It's a standard format used in almost every formal debate.

Actually, it isn't simple. In my apologetic journey I've watched DOZENS upon DOZENS of debates and this is the only debate I've known to have participants RESPOND to opening statements separately from the main presentations.

In WLC debates and the other dozens that I've seen, in the opening statement is where you PRESENT your material...all of that other crap is unwarranted and a waste of time.

(November 16, 2014 at 4:51 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Seems like the only good thing you can do is present the worse possible case for espousing your particular form of Christian apologetics.

It isn't a particular form, it is the same arguments that have been argued for the past century by Christian apologetics, and I've yet to see you even attempt to refute anything...all you've done is bitch and moan..which itself isn't worth to much of anything as far as I'm concerned.

---

(November 15, 2014 at 7:34 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 12:24 am)Esquilax Wrote: No, Archaeopteryx is the missing link in the dinosaur to bird chain; dinosaurs and reptiles are on different prongs of the classification system. They aren't even in the same class, let alone anything of more specificity.

That depends on how the term reptile is used. Traditionally, reptile is purely a bucket word, meaning it is a term used to contain air breathing quadruped vertebrate animals which are neither mammals, nor amphibians, nor birds.

Dinosaurs were obviously not mammals nor amphibians, and their close relationships with birds were not understood, therefore they became reptiles by default.

So any transitional form between dinosaurs and birds were by traditional definition transition between reptiles and birds.

Only later did it become generally accepted that classification in this manner conveys little reliable information about deeper physiological similarities and interrelationship between different classes, and is therefore not very useful. It is much more useful to classify organisms by their natural ancesteral relationships as inferred by their deeper physiological and genetic similarities.

Basically, a class of animals should contain their physiologically or genetically inferred last common ancester, as well as every last one of the descendants of that common ancester, and nothing else.

When seen this way, it becomes clear "reptile" is not a natural grouping of animals. The word reptile retains currency because of its antiquity and long use. It does not retain currency because in it traditional application it actually implies meaningful description of ancesteral relation or fundamental physiological similarity. In the word of the moron that styles himself "his majesty". Reptile is not a "kind". It is a bucket containing arbitrary collection of different "kinds" that are only superficially similar, but examined more deeply are clearly not physiologically more similar to each other than each is to "kinds" outside the reptile bucket.

What is worse, traditional "reptile" classification sometimes arbitrarily bisects major deep physiological "kinds", such as archosaurs and synapsids, by including some of their members Under the reptile bucke, and excluding other members simply because presumed superficial similarity. For example, the archosaursian crocodiles and land dwelling dinosaurs were considered reptiles, while avian dinosaurs were not considered reptiles, despite the fact that archosaurs were clearly physiologically closer to birds than to any other members of the traditional reptile group.

When we dispense with the burdensome and baseless "reptile" concept, we see Archaeopteryx was just another dinosaur, just as all descendants of archaeopteryx are still dinosaurs - birds being just a subset of dinosaurs, and dinosaurs in turn being just a subset of archosaurs. Dinosaurs are physiologically not more closely similar to other traditional members of the reptile bucket than they are traditional nonmembers of the reptiles bucket, like mammals.

Mammals, a traditional nonreptile bucket, in turn are not clearly distinct from all members of traditional reptile bucket. Clearly mammals are very physiologically similar to synapsid reptiles - traditional member of reptile bucket. Mammals and synapsid reptiles are clearly far more similar to each other physiologically, than synapsid reptiles are to other members of the traditional reptile bucket.

Even though the bulk of your post is bio-babble, I appreciate you correcting Esquilax on his bullcrap...he thinks he knows everything and is apparently a fan favorite on this forum...so to see someone besides me correct him, it gives me great pleasure

(November 16, 2014 at 1:30 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 4:51 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Liar, and not a very good one at that.

Man please. I didn't lie about anything. What the hell is there for me to lie for?

Don't sugar coat it for us, His_Travesty. Obviously, if god is truth, how can you lie about that? Even if you did lie, how could it be wrong when God decides right and wrong. Case closed. Your work here is done. You can go home.

(November 16, 2014 at 1:30 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 4:51 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: The rules were set out for you to both to follow in a standard format - opening statement, rebuttals, conclusion. Simple. It's a standard format used in almost every formal debate.

Actually, it isn't simple. In my apologetic journey I've watched DOZENS upon DOZENS of debates and this is the only debate I've known to have participants RESPOND to opening statements separately from the main presentations.

In WLC debates and the other dozens that I've seen, in the opening statement is where you PRESENT your material...all of that other crap is unwarranted and a waste of time.

If you actually believed that responses to opening statements were a waste of time, then why was your very first post in the debate a response to my opening statement?

And if you didn't want to follow the rules, then why did you unambiguously agree to follow them? I asked you if you had any changes you wanted to make, and you said no.

Quote: Even though the bulk of your post is bio-babble, I appreciate you correcting Esquilax on his bullcrap...he thinks he knows everything and is apparently a fan favorite on this forum...so to see someone besides me correct him, it gives me great pleasure

He was correcting you too, you fucking moron. In fact, his response was more a correction of you and your "kind" shit than it was to me. I found it informative and entirely in line with my understanding of biological classification, but apparently you didn't read it at all.

And what is this bio-babble crap you keep spouting? Do you actually think advertising that you don't understand what's being said counts as a rebuttal?

(November 2, 2014 at 1:26 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: ... two of every living thing fit aboard a boat ...

Worse than that, two of every unclean and seven of every clean animal. That is a lot of animals and the food to feed them for 40 days?

(November 16, 2014 at 1:30 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: It isn't a particular form, it is the same arguments that have been argued for the past century by Christian apologetics, and I've yet to see you even attempt to refute anything

That's exactly what makes talking to you particularly boring. The only reason why you don't see these arguments refuted is your head being in a very dark place.

(November 16, 2014 at 1:46 pm)abaris Wrote: That's exactly what makes talking to you particularly boring. The only reason why you don't see these arguments refuted is your head being in a very dark place.

I can't speak for anything that happened elsewhere, but as for on this forum, no one has refuted anything, certainly not you.

In order to refute the kalam, demonstrate how infinity can be traversed...that is one of the key reasons why the kalam is strong...can you refute that???

No, you can't, so therefore you haven't refuted anything...you are just on here talking.