Greetings,
This is getting tiresome. As usual, you've ignored all the arguments and just resorted to insults. Do you have any other strategy?
Maybe you can list all 7% of them, so I can retract my opinion in the face of such heavy weights?
Hang on, I'm telling you nobody holds the 'naturalist' position described by the author, and you want me to tell you who all these people are that don't hold this view? OK, the entire population of the world.
Send me a ticket to your town of mutants.. I'd love to see how things run under no control!
Utterly irrelevant (and pretty baffling, too).
Eh old habits die hard.. I believe the same condition afflicts you?
Sure, I may be a bit harsh with people sometimes (especially if they're spouting mind-shrinking nonsense), but I don't use
ad hominem as the main structure of my arguments, like you do. What you fail to realise is that an insult does nothing to push the debate forwards, and if everything else you post is irrelevant then your case amounts to nothing.
Why is it that most atheists can't discuss the contents therein with any dexterity? do tell?a piece that I think knocks yours on its A**
here although I can still articulate its content..
How do you know I can't discuss the contents of what I've posted? If I had as much time on my hands as you seem to have, I'd be happy to do so.
By the way, the article you've posted addresses a totally different question to the one we're discussing. It's about the origin of life, whereas the article I've posted is about common descent. So, once again, irrelevant.
Pls discuss its fatal flaws from the article presented above, given to us indeed by the 'scientific community' instead of just being redundant ey?
The article you've posted doesn't discuss the argument from design. Once again, irrelevant.
indeed not clear! and doesn't reconcile well with trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders, in which 'natural selection' isn't only laughable but in fact the opposite of all it stands for actually happens. Bad genes get passed down and get progressively worst with each generation, no favoring better qualities here.. when I come up with a theory, I'd like to cover all my grounds so that people won't be poking holes in it every day ey?
It wouldn't be a very good scientific theory then. As I'm sure you know, evolution isn't perfect - no scientific theory is. It is the best theory for explaining the diversity of life that we currently have, though.
When people speak of 'mother nature' they usually mean it as a force that controls things. It is only fair he starts from a certain agreed upon point. Otherwise in your mind what do you think people take 'mother nature' to denote?
The article in the OP doesn't use the phrase 'mother nature'. Again, irrelevant.
Sure you have... I have a photographic memory.. we were discussing the bees and Henry the IV etc etc and you bragged well I shouldn't say bragged, humbly pointed out that you are a lingual expert!
It must have let you down in this case, then, as I never use the word 'lingual', due to the obvious innuendo that arises from its primary meaning. That's what I was alluding to earlier, although, as with most other things, you missed it.
Perhaps it is an insufficiency in the English language that renders words so sterile?
So you're attacking the world's undisputed global language now, simply because you have no sensible response? The point is that philosophical naturalism has nothing to with what a particular word means in Arabic.
And I am here merely to point out that your counter argument didn't hold itself to higher grounds...I too am convinced of it..
But you haven't actually addressed any of the arguments I've put forward, as usual. To be honest, I would have expected some progress in your standard of debate by this time. C'mon, PA, you're not entirely dim - why can't you even make an effort to discuss things in a civilised or productive way?
Peace
