Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[pocaracas]

Hey rev... have you seen this before?

Your view has consistently been
- misrepresent science
- plagiarize from creationist lying sources
- disregard actual evidence presented
- use unreasonable doubt of scientific endeavors
- assume one very unscientific book provides the correct answer to these questions.

Tell me, why should I (or anyone) consider your view?

I'll check out argument #2, but if you come back with the same line of reasoning, I'll be the first to repeat this list where your behavior is outlined.
If I were you, I'd revise this behavior, as it is not conducent to rational thought.
- Pay attention to your sources of information. Investigate them. Don't accept what one person says about a field that person is mostly ignorant of... (like a lawyer talking about evolution)
- Try to find the original discovery of the effect you are arguing against/for. What has the scientific community done about it and how?
- Avoid using fallacies, like the famous god-of-the-gaps, or argument from ignorance... also, the fine tuning argument has been done to death and it will be beaten once again, if you come up with it. There's no point in it.

I see you tried to follow my first piece of advice... sadly, you blundered the second.
However, your "view" still stands.

Do note that some of us are not addressing your argument because we don't have to. We are rather addressing your methodology, which has been very unscientific, leaving you consistently on the wrong end of what current scientific knowledge claims about the world.
Why are you presenting several wrong understandings of the world?