Jakkal (jakkal) wrote,
Jakkal
jakkal

The Saga Continues

I'll put this one behind a cut for people who don't care.





My last reply to him:
"Oh and do please read this again. Especially #3 #4 #5 #12 and #13

http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/wackononsense.pdf

And please. Do try to refute those points. And when you do, give evidence of what you speak of when you refute them. Don't just say you can, or say you did already.

And also, again, I ask, feel free to post scientific studies that disprove evolution, or speak as if evolution isn't the "end all be all" of origin sciences. Give us scientific research to support intelligent design or any other alternate theories. I would like to see some peer reviewed studies and journals as well.

And I would also like to know why you think it's okay for you to state things that you couldn't possible know about as facts, but then you turn around and state that Evolution, or scientists cannot state the same thing.

I would also like to know what you believe to be the procedure for discovering evolutionary ties to animals. Thus far it seems to me that you don't understand how evolution works or how scientists go about determining evolutionary links. Of course you could be kidding when you say strange things like "6 legged frogs evolved from insects" when there's no evidence to believe so. But when we point out animals that are taxonomically similar, you dismiss them and say even more silly things such as "Whale's limbs would atrophy in a generation". WHich, mind you, if that did happen, which it can't, it would still be evolution."



His reply to me:

Jakkal, you obviously haven't read what I've been posting. My very point is we can't know. And you haven't addressed any of my refutations at all. Yes, this is a debate, I do want you to take my points one by one. That's what people do in debate. Simply saying that I'm irrational means nothing. You have to show that I'm irrational. Are you able to do that?

I refuted the taxomony thing a long time ago. It's obvious you didn't read it. I was comletely serious about the six legged frog even though it was a point. That's not my refutaion or progressive sequence and taxonomy.

I'll look at the points you mentioned tomorrow. WebTV won't open the site so I can't do it tonight.

By the way, how do you know that the people on this forum are not in my favor?

Actually, Jakkal, just forget it. It's obvious you're not reading what I post and you're too closed minded to permit yourself to read anything I post in the future. A reasonable debate would have been fun but you're not going to allow that so just forget it.




Uh.. huh. I'm the one being close minded? I admit I didn't bother to read most of the posts, it's been freakin' 11 pages and god knows how many months (I posted on this a while ago when he tried to back me into a corner before, remember that?) Anyway. I didn't start back into the pseudobate until around page 8 or so. So no, I didn't read any of the replies before that. Why? Cuz I stopped getting involved, and I'm not going to go back.

It's not a debate when you post really stupid things and don't back them up. And I'm not closeminded when I say "hey, you said something stupid". No that's me pointing out the obvious. I already told them, I don't know how many times, that I don't mind if Christians view evolution as being 1. The work of God, or 2. An explanation for a metaphorical "Creation". No. I don't mind that. And the Catholic Church doesn't mind it either. And I tend to say that what the Vatican says goes, you know?

But he once again reduces himself to trying to insult me. Whatever. I might just pick apart his last post refuting what he just said, such as the close minded part being an Ad Hominem attack.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 11 comments