(November 15, 2014 at 7:08 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 11:09 am)Chas Wrote: No, they weren't, dude. Read a book.

Another ignorant one. Let's just "read" the wiki article...

"Although the word dinosaur means "terrible lizard", the name is somewhat misleading, as dinosaurs are not lizards. Instead, they represent a separate group of reptiles that, like many extinct forms, did not exhibit characteristics traditionally seen as reptilian, such as a sprawling limb posture or ectothermy."

So how about you read a freakin' book instead of displaying your willful ignorance regarding your own religion (evolution).

No, I am using the term in the scientific, not the popular, sense.

Wikipedia Wrote:Reptiles, the class Reptilia, are an evolutionary grade of animals, comprising today's turtles, crocodilians, snakes, lizards and tuatara, their extinct relatives, and some of the extinct ancestors of mammals. Due to their evolutionary history and the diversity of extinct forms, the validity of the class is not universally supported in scientific circles, though in practice, it remains in use by some biologists and more laymen, especially in mass media. The study of reptiles, historically combined with that of amphibians, is called herpetology.

(November 16, 2014 at 1:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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?

Because I thought that was the post that you were PRESENTING your case for evolution. I've never seen a debate where the opening statements were separate sessions. In WLC debates (and almost any other debate) the opening statement consists of an intro and ALSO the main body of whatever the PRO side is arguing for. That is what I thought it was.

(November 16, 2014 at 1:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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.

If I knew the opening statements and the main presentations were separate entities, I would have requested to change the rules...I had no idea you guys were going against everything that I've ever seen in any debate that I've watched.

(November 16, 2014 at 1:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: He was correcting you too, you fucking moron.

Newsflash, dumbass...I knew he was "trying" to correct me, which is why I started the post off with "Even tho the bulk of your post is bio-babble" Reading comprehension, people

(November 16, 2014 at 1:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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.

Well, let's just put it in simplistic terms for you...dinosaurs were reptiles. I know it must hurt being a evolution guru and being corrected on animal classification...but hey, it happens to the worse of them.

(November 16, 2014 at 1:35 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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?

What is bio-babble? Well, to babble is "to utter meaningless and confusion of words or sounds"...and "bio" means life, particularly as it relates to the field of science and the study of biology.

So bio-babble is "uttering meaningless and confusion of words as it relates to biology". Keyword: Meaningless

(November 16, 2014 at 2:05 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: 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???

Infinity cannot be traversed. fact by definition. Therefore god cannot be infinite either.

This does not mean nor is meant to suggest that infinities do not exist.

Time cannot, therefore, be infinite or even exist. Everything is, no before, no after. There are infinite possibilities of which we are aware of one.

What was god doing before the first thought of "Hey, let us create a universe and put some humans on one speck of it and fuck with them!".

(November 16, 2014 at 2:19 pm)Chas Wrote: No, I am using the term in the scientific, not the popular, sense.

[quote=Wikipedia]
Reptiles, the class Reptilia, are an evolutionary grade of animals, comprising today's turtles, crocodilians, snakes, lizards and tuatara, their extinct relatives, and some of the extinct ancestors of mammals. Due to their evolutionary history and the diversity of extinct forms, the validity of the class is not universally supported in scientific circles, though in practice, it remains in use by some biologists and more laymen, especially in mass media. The study of reptiles, historically combined with that of amphibians, is called herpetology.

Whether the archae is the "alleged" missing link between dinosaur/bird, or reptile/bird...doesn't matter, because both are equally false. It is like two people arguing over whether or not 2+2=5 or 2+2=7, they are BOTH wrong so it really doesn't matter, now does it?

---

(November 16, 2014 at 2:25 pm)IATIA Wrote: Infinity cannot be traversed. fact by definition. Therefore god cannot be infinite either.

I don't recall saying that God is infinite.

(November 16, 2014 at 2:25 pm)IATIA Wrote: This does not mean nor is meant to suggest that infinities do not exist.

You just said that infinity cannot be traversed...so no need to get down here and give forth the notion that it MAY be possible.

(November 16, 2014 at 2:25 pm)IATIA Wrote: Time cannot, therefore, be infinite or even exist. Everything is, no before, no after. There are infinite possibilities of which we are aware of one.

No need to discuss it any further after that...

(November 16, 2014 at 2:30 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 2:19 pm)Chas Wrote: No, I am using the term in the scientific, not the popular, sense.

[quote=Wikipedia]
Reptiles, the class Reptilia, are an evolutionary grade of animals, comprising today's turtles, crocodilians, snakes, lizards and tuatara, their extinct relatives, and some of the extinct ancestors of mammals. Due to their evolutionary history and the diversity of extinct forms, the validity of the class is not universally supported in scientific circles, though in practice, it remains in use by some biologists and more laymen, especially in mass media. The study of reptiles, historically combined with that of amphibians, is called herpetology.

Whether the archae is the "alleged" missing link between dinosaur/bird, or reptile/bird...doesn't matter, because both are equally false. It is like two people arguing over whether or not 2+2=5 or 2+2=7, they are BOTH wrong so it really doesn't matter, now does it?

You clearly don't understand biological classification, the theory of evolution, or the evidence supporting it.

You reject it out-of-hand then go looking for reasons. You are the worst sort of presupposissionalist.
.

(November 16, 2014 at 2:23 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: Because I thought that was the post that you were PRESENTING your case for evolution. I've never seen a debate where the opening statements were separate sessions. In WLC debates (and almost any other debate) the opening statement consists of an intro and ALSO the main body of whatever the PRO side is arguing for. That is what I thought it was.

Right, but that's very clearly not what the rules we'd agreed upon were. I both linked you to a lengthy explanation, and explained them myself in PM.

Also? Most debates have a pair of opening statements, both of which present their case before moving on to the response rounds. Not only did you just decide to skip your own opening statement and head straight for a response, but what would those response rounds be in response to if not for what was already presented?

I think you're just covering for yourself here.

Quote:If I knew the opening statements and the main presentations were separate entities, I would have requested to change the rules...I had no idea you guys were going against everything that I've ever seen in any debate that I've watched.

So, did you not read the rules I suggested? Because, to be clear, this is what happened: I linked you to some rules, you agreed, posted out of turn, and then got shitty with the admins and myself when we tried to correct the problem. If the reason you didn't follow the rules really was your own misunderstanding, then getting pissy with CD was a real asshole move.

Quote:Newsflash, dumbass...I knew he was "trying" to correct me, which is why I started the post off with "Even tho the bulk of your post is bio-babble" Reading comprehension, people

Oooh, so you just wanted to outright dismiss the parts that disagreed with you, while strutting around during the bits that agree with you.

Quote:Well, let's just put it in simplistic terms for you...dinosaurs were reptiles. I know it must hurt being a evolution guru and being corrected on animal classification...but hey, it happens to the worse of them.

So... you don't know anything about cladistics? That's cool, you can just admit it. We all know you have no idea what you're talking about already, you don't need to hide it.

Quote:What is bio-babble? Well, to babble is "to utter meaningless and confusion of words or sounds"...and "bio" means life, particularly as it relates to the field of science and the study of biology.

So bio-babble is "uttering meaningless and confusion of words as it relates to biology". Keyword: Meaningless

And you just decided it was meaningless based on... what, exactly? Your own inability to understand it?

Because to someone who's actually well versed in the terminology and methodology of biological science, it has a lot of meaning. That's why it's so funny whenever you wave things off as bio-babble; the people who actually study this stuff understand it just fine. The one who doesn't understand it at all is the one who makes up his own terms and then insists that everyone else use them like a toddler.

You don't support your claim that it's babble, you don't give us any indication that you have education sufficient to label it that, and your conduct thus far gives us no reason to believe you understand even the simplest of facts; from the outside looking in, all the word "bio-babble" is is an- apparently unintentional!- admission that you are both unwilling and unable to understand the science you think you can disagree with.

(November 16, 2014 at 2:30 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 2:25 pm)IATIA Wrote: This does not mean nor is meant to suggest that infinities do not exist.

You just said that infinity cannot be traversed...so no need to get down here and give forth the notion that it MAY be possible.

Traversing and existing are two completely unrelated arguments.

Quote:

(November 16, 2014 at 2:25 pm)IATIA Wrote: Time cannot, therefore, be infinite or even exist. Everything is, no before, no after. There are infinite possibilities of which we are aware of one.

No need to discuss it any further after that...

To be expected.

---

(November 16, 2014 at 2:30 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: [quote='Chas' pid='797477' dateline='1416161976']I don't recall saying that God is infinite.

If god is not infinite, then what is beyond it's boundaries?

(November 16, 2014 at 2:51 pm)IATIA Wrote: Traversing and existing are two completely unrelated arguments.

Not if the existence of infinity is dependent upon whether or not it can be traversed, which it is.

If time is infinite, then the "set" of any event and the number of events which preceded it is infinite...so for any single event to come to past, an infinite set has been traversed.

Makes no sense.

(November 16, 2014 at 2:59 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 2:51 pm)IATIA Wrote: Traversing and existing are two completely unrelated arguments.

Not if the existence of infinity is dependent upon whether or not it can be traversed, which it is.

If time is infinite, then the "set" of any event and the number of events which preceded it is infinite...so for any single event to come to past, an infinite set has been traversed.

Makes no sense.

Firstly, to most everyone's dissatisfaction, I have never at anytime acknowledged that time exists.

Secondly, if there is no infinity, what is the stopping point as one travels beyond the bounds of our universe.