I want to slightly correct your belief that I have admitted defeat. What I said was that UNTIL I or someone else refutes what you said then you are the winner.
So, the Allies ‘won’ the Second World War... but the Fourth Reich may still rise, eh?
It sure is a curious dictionary you use, Willow. It seems that, say, a football team can win a match, but the other team may not have been defeated. Perhaps you could define the term ‘winner’, as you see it please?
I haven't had the time to adequately refute your ID atttack.
I quite understand the time constraints. However, my post was on 22 December, and you’ve made countless other posts yourself since then. Maybe you just can’t be bothered to try? If however you
cannot refute my argument, then why won’t you accept the (provisional, as with all science) conclusion that you are likely wrong?
Since you are not, now, admitting defeat -- despite me winning -- your kudos has just evaporated.
It was a thorough thrashing I will admit but it doesn't scare me in the least.
Scare? That is not my intent. If
I am wrong, show me. I hope I would admit it, and change my views if necessary. But despite being apparently wrong, you will not change. I find that outstandingly arrogant.
In your own mind, you are right, regardless of what you are shown, regardless of your inability to refute contrary argument put to you. There is utterly no point in debating with you then.
"purposeless and mindless process " this description of RM&NS sounds like a clandestine way of saying that a single Almighty Creator does not exist.
Nope. Mutation and selection act as if they are mindless, so we may as well regard them as that. It just means that he is not
required to explain what we see. He is
refuted by the stupidity of the designs.
I thought science doesn't include religious determinations into their conclusions ?
It doesn’t. Gods are simply not considered, any more than gremlins are. They might be involved, but since the world acts as if they’re not, we don’t need to include them in our explanations. Yes, it’s a theological conclusion that, because gods don’t seem to be involved, they are actually not even there. But it is a conclusion that individuals draw for themselves -- and plenty of people, many scientists among them, are happy to allow for a generally non-interventionist god.
Maybe I am being distrustful ? Maybe I am not naieve ?
Maybe you are only distrustful of argument and evidence which contradicts your own, unsupported, world view? I do not understand why, if you prefer the cosiness of impervious, concrete-bunker faith to evidence-based reality... if no argument can sway you... I don’t understand why you bother to come here to debate. Please explain.
Have you deliberately ignored the parts of post 116 that mentions you ? Just wondering.
Huh? You mean that very long, poorly formatted post which replied to someone else (wj), consisting of heaps about theology, philosophy, Milton, Johnson, quotes from Williams?
Oh I see, I am in there after all.
I was going to say sorry, simply missed it, and I’d get to it shortly. But, maybe I will at some point, but actually, I can’t be bothered. Would you like me to rustle up a list of all the questions
you still have not answered? Till you reply to more of those, and until you demonstrate that there is any point in discussing these matters with you anyway, I quite frankly cannot be arsed.
TTFN, DT
™ Version 4.2
