randman,
It's up the forum members to make a choice. They can choose to try to understand their critics and engage their points, which sometimes occurs, or the evos here can present their canned arguments that we have heard ad nauseum and in which we unbelievers in ToE don't find convincing, and frequently never acknowledging the real issues raised.
That's the pot calling the kettle black. The last post you made to me you refused to engage, based on the false excuse that I had attacked the bible. Like that has anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of anything! Is this the action of someone who "engages their point"?
You also had the logical fallacy "ad hoc" defined for you, had it shown why your arguments met the standards in order to be fallacious, & then without any explanation or refutation, simply declared your arguments "sound". Is this the action of someone who "engages their point"?
I could list all of the other points you refused to to address along with their associated excuses, but time limits me. But please don't pretend, even to yourself, that you engage the points raised.
The pattern is that you make a crap argument, it's logical or evidential flaw is pointed out, then you enter evade mode.
As far as myself, perhaps I am too proud, but considering my background, education, etc
So why don't you understand that you need sound premises in order to infer a sound conclusion? Why don't you understand that if you lack knowledge of your premises, then your conclusion will be as poor as your premises? Why can't you supply references?
Mark
This message has been edited by mark24, 11-18-2005 06:39 PM
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't