Since error by definition is refutable, "functionally irrefutable" error is fiction. Fictitious babbling in which you may engage fails for relevance in any discussion.
I’ll presume for the sake of discussion that we admire Dembski’s debating skills. It is also possible that we share the same world-view to some extent, at least where it pertains to origins and TOE.
That said I’ll let the record show that on this third round of exchanges readers still don’t know what quotation you have attributed to Dembski, which allegedly forms this seemingly un-Google-ably elusive “dictum,” to which you refer.
Somehow I don’t think the problem you are experiencing in debates is entirely attributable to what may -- by your own estimation -- be your opponent’s “invincible ignorance,” as much as it might be attributable to your own general lack of preparedness for discussions in which you engage.
If you actually showed up to debates with your source material in hand you might have a more credible standing in the debate.
Dembski is mathematically astute and you tangentially appealed to his authority. I happen to be a biochemist; are you a professionally accomplished mathematician by any chance?
None of which addresses the question of whether Christ commanded you to engage in fallacious argumentation (switching the meaning of terms in mid stream) for the aggrandizement of your religious self-esteem.
Jesus is the Author and finisher of our faith (Hebrews 12:2), and all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (II Timothy 3:16).
So then, just a few questions:
Does Paul engage in “conflating promulgation of the Gospel” in Ephesians 6:14-15 as he writes under Christ’s inspiration, “Stand therefore, having your loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the Gospel of peace.”?
Do you think that the debates that Paul engaged in with his opponents on Mars Hill as recorded in the Book of Acts were just “useless endeavors” too, or was he standing for the truth of the Gospel as Christ had commanded?
Are you alleging that Paul engaged in debates with people who had flawed arguments merely for “aggrandizement of [his] religious self-esteem”?
Do you think Paul showed up to his debates as unprepared as you appear to be inclined to show up to yours?
[Me] Mastering the skill of rebuking logical fallacy and poor argumentation begins with having ready access to those sources from which one intends to quote in order to make their point.
[You] Pot, meet the kettle. I'm not familiar with the official ranking authority that found not having a quote handy, of lesser rhetorical value than engaging in sophomoric non sequiturs.
One doesn’t draw credible conclusions from arguments based upon imaginary source material.
Engaging in debates without your facts and source material in hand is indeed a “useless endeavor.”
Jesus Christ through His inspired Scriptures admonishes us to “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15) 1 Peter 3:15 goes on to say, “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and be ready always to give an answer to every man who asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you.”
Whether you consider them to be “invincibly ignorant” or not, yes, you are commanded in the inspired Scriptures of Jesus Christ not only to engage opponents, but to do your homework and to be prepared to stand and deliver.
The whole thing invariably devolves into "my science is bigger than your science" match.
If you ever hope to win debates with materialists, you’ll need to learn how to debate on your terms not theirs.
FReegards!
