hitchy writes:
I explained that evolution is not anti-god
14gipper writes:
But it is, guess it was a feeble explanation.
trixie writes:
This has been covered in another thread
14gipper writes:
sorry they didn't understand it very well.
Rule #2 of this forum reads, "Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration."
It appears to me that whenever you don't like something that's said, you simply assert that it's not true, or that it's just false on the surface, even though you must realize that those debating with you don't see it as false on the surface.
Here's an example of what I mean by asserting something is just false on the surface:
14gipper writes:
your godless idea of science is nonscense...You think you are, do you not, decended from flies, or sharing common ancestors with them? You think you should be allowed free reign with this on christian children?
Common ancestors with flies is indeed a teaching of evolution, and so obviously those who believe evolution should be taught in schools, which includes the majority of our local governments, all our state governments, and our federal government believe that this should be taught to Christian children. Asserting that this is nonsense is not debating.
14gipper writes:
your godless idea of science is nonscense, in that you don't want to drop your assumptions that you call evidence to mock God, and the same evidence and science that can be used to explain creation.
Another repeated and baseless assertion. Assertions such as this are to be supported with evidence. Until you do, then it is you who are putting forth assumptions.
People seem to be satisfied to continue debating you, which might just be because it would be too irritating to leave you with the last word, when that last word is just another baseless assertion, but if you registered, you agreed to try to debate in good faith. That means not just asserting, "I guess it was a feeble explanation." It's incumbent upon you to give reasons for what you're saying.
I'm not terribly satisfied myself with the following answer you gave, but hey, it was an attempt to explain your position:
14gipper writes:
It's anti God anti Christ, in that it tries to replace God's creation, with the creature creating itself, it leaves no room for the Savior, It says God is a liar, and it was designed to destroy faith in God.
At least this provides something to discuss and is more than a bare assertion. Maybe you can use this one as an example to follow in future responses.
™ Version 4.2
