Posted: Oct 07, 2010 12:07 am
stevebee92653 wrote:As usual, you are way off. You didn't mention that I have acres of attacks on me already in the comments section of my blog. They have been left for the joyful reading of any evolutionaut.
At least your blog is being semi-honest.
My "rules" are very liberal. All I ask is that people say something with a little thought. Attack my stuff all you want using your own thinking and research. I have a large blog, and there are plenty of targets.
A lot of people are skeptical about your educational background. Should we all just ignore that and pretend that you have proper training necessary to evaluate any and all evidence? I don't think so.
But to continually get the same stuff over and over....."argument from ignorance",,,,,'magic space fairies".....'little stevie and his little heart", and continual links to anti-religious videos and sites is just irritating and a waste of space and time.
Sorry Steve but you're the one using those fallacies, not your critics. You tell us not to point out how 99% of people support something: ad popular. But wait, hardly any rational critics even use that argument anyway so telling people not to use it is sort of redundant. As for the videos and sites, if you won't let critics back up what they say or let them point to any positively indicative evidence then what will you let them post? Pictures of Crocoducks and life evolving from a rock?
The "don't do's" are tiny and very specific compared to what you can write. I even post many comments that break the rules horribly. You didn't mention that of course. What almost NEVER happens is any evolutionaut coming on my site and taking any page, paragraph, or point, and saying "here is where you are wrong".
What about ADParker's critique and corrections of article 36? If you ask me, he did a mighty fine job going over the whole thing. Is that too much of a challenge?
Dismissing you because you gave people a good reason a challenge does not make.
The strange thing in this world is there is nothing that an anti-evo can do that is fair and right. Which I find very strange. But that is the way things are in this world.
Maybe that's because "anti-evo" arguments fail at every level to meat the strict rigors of science in general. Maybe you would have a case against evolution if you presented something other then some BS about Tyrannosaur arms, teeth fitting together, and the never-ending accusation about how anyone who disagrees with you is "indoctrinated".