hopefully by people who don't get sucked in to SO's tendency to reply to every sentence and who end up following suit
I don't really see how this can be done successfully, not for every sentence but in terms of general structure. If one doesn't respond in kind then the chances are that the specific points you are rebutting may not be clear enough since SO usually makes about a dozen assertions in each posts.
When I tried to make a normal unbroken post his reply was just the same piecemeal as always, restating his inital contentions and not answering any of my questions.
It seems like no one on the evolutionist side is willing to pick some particular aspect and pursue it to a conclusion.
I would also dispute this. How can this be a fruitful approach when SO simply ignores any counterargument and just restates his initial premises?
Are you saying everyone should only ever reply once to SO with a substantive coherent post outlining their counterargument and then just give up? Because you know that SO is just going to restate his inital position and totally ignore the actual counterargument.
I can't count the number of times he has reverted to his 'if you just keep randomly mutating a protein's structure it will lose its function' argument, no matter how many times it has been clearly pointed out to him, with appropriate facts, that this is totally irrelevent since it has nothing to do with how evolution works and certainly doesn't tell us anything about the specific effects of a given mutation on function.
If the way SO responds is so bad that you don't want others to do it, and I would agree that it is detrimental to thought out coherent arguments, then why do you let him do it? Is he actually incapable of replying in any other format?
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
