Your EvC Debate Dream Team - Fantasy Debating

Oh ye of little Faith ... and no Cold Foreign Object.

No we couldn't.

Some of them seem quite reasonable: for example goldrush, Aaron, slevesque, and sac.

Well, if we'd left it up to you we wouldn't have heard equally nonsensical statements about the great Pyramid and the "pillars of Enoch". For that we needed Cold Foreign Object.Every religious loon has their own brand of crazy, there's nothing special about yours.

And yet here you are.

It's a wonder he also found the time to write Tropic of Cancer. "Ingeniously" is not the word I'd have chosen. Not when there are approximately a million other words in the English language, many of which, such as "haddock", "runcible", and "xylophone", would seem more apt.

Earth to Buzsaw ... I did not participate in that thread. The degree to which you kicked my butt, "ideologically" or otherwise, must therefore have been minimal.

No you won't. Orangutans aren't remotely in the running; and chimpanzees and bonobos are sister species, and so must be equally closely related to us.Who in the world denies this?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Thank you.Like Kipling, I am moved to "return thanks yet once more to Allah for the diversity of His creatures." Yes, there is indeed someone who at least suggests that Homo and the Hylobatidae form a clade, and in a strictly literal sense, he lives on the same planet as I do.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I thought the name seemed familiar. A Feduccian figure, then, clinging gamely to the wreckage of a sunken theory.

Oh, right, but I shouldn't be "snarky".

No, but I do sometimes think that the most pertinent form of ridicule is actual ridicule.I really don't do it in order to be mean, I just do it because I think it's the most effective and concise way of making the point.I would not descend to mockery if I knew of a better way. But so often when we see false reasoning it seems that mockery is the best way. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps someone better than me could do it better.It's just the way that I always think about things myself. Given a method of reasoning, the first thing I always ask myself is --- could I use the same method of reasoning to prove that pigs have wings or that I can walk on water? If so, then it's a crappy way of reasoning. So I look for the ridiculous first not because I wish to be mean to people but because I think it's the first test of reasoning.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I have to agree with GM. Over on another thread, your fellow creationist Robert Byers is claiming that the KT boundary is "the flood line". He is also claiming that this is how "the creationist" sees it, apparently unaware of or indifferent to the fact that there is more than one creationist opinion.You have not agreed with him. You have not disagreed with him. You have passed over this in silence. Here's a challenge for you. Either find arguments to back him up, or explain to him why, on creationist principles, he is wrong.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.