"They are used to block genuine discourse so I object to their use."
Ho ho. Funny. You use them almost every time we have had a discussion and then pretend that I am using straw men. And, to top it off, you claim I am projecting...
"The things you positioned yourself against in your first post is not my side of this debate and I have already made that clear."
So? It is a debate. You don't necessarily need to support the side you are arguing for. Don't you know anything?
"You are mistaken. I have not contributed anything yet so you can't be attacking my wrongness"
But, you did _less. You made the(false and provably false) assertion that ID doesn't explain some critical things. Here are your words.
My position on this topic is simple. I don't consider either of those opposing views to be adequate in explaining critical features of the universe and living things, at least when positioned as one view exclusive of the other.
That was a contribution. Are you denying it now? That would be your MO...
"Your tangent about the 'anti-evolution crowd' has nothing to do with my position."
You put that in quotes. I never said such a thing. So you aren't quoting me. Who are you quoting here?
"I'm not even sure that crowd is a real thing."
Gotcha. So Tenchu and harris are lying about their beliefs.
"So what?"
Umm, _less, this is an important part of the argument. Adding an ID with pretty much unlimited powers, after all such an entity has got to have the power to design and create organisms, is a key point of ID. It also removes it from the realm of science. If you don't understand that, then you are not really equipped to debate the issue from either side.
"I agree, so what?"
Ok. So you have tossed in the towel.
You want different rules. That is fine. You said debate, and that means certain things. Which, apparently, you are unwilling to accept.
So, let's do it your way. Pick a topic we are on opposite sides of. And then try to support your position. |
