well, if you're going to use ad hominem attacks, I may as well.
Your as immature as your writing. See, we can both play this game. No point, really.
Now then, as the whole reading into thing:
crash writes:
You certainly can't be expected to win the debate on the evidence, after all
The evidence crash is talking about is the evidence for the Theory of Evolution. You respond:
vash writes:
The "evidence" points towards design not random chance
Now then, how am I supposed to read your comment? Crash is talking about evolution, and you state that the evidence shows desing, not random chance. Seems to me that you know squat about the actual theory of evolution.
And now you're being just plain stupid:
I could also give a rat's ass about someone's positional feelings being compromised
I'm not talking about "postional feelings". I'm talking about misrepresenting someone's stance on an issue. For example, if I state:
"Stockholm is the capital of Sweden"
but you present my argument (in attempting to rebut):
"He says Stockholm is a city"
You have created a "straw man".
The actual evolution position:
"mutation + natural selection (which is non-random) = evolution"
you state:
"evolution = random chance"
You created the straw man.
And he is your opponent in a debate if he is arguing for a position that is counter to yours (and vice versa).
And one final thing:
You look about as old as your arguments belie
Belie is defined as "to give a false impression of " by merriam webster. You're not using the verb very well.
Secondly, you have managed to use incredulity, ad hominem, and straw men in your arguments. Not what I would call "good arguments". So I don't think you've any room to say my arguments are crap.
And how old do you think I am (without looking at my profile. If you had to begin with, you wouldn't have made so imprecise a statement.)
™ Version 4.2
