Atheism is unreasonable

[His_Majesty]

Right, but that's very clearly not what the rules we'd agreed upon were. I both linked you to a lengthy explanation, and explained them myself in PM.

I didn't look at the link because I thought everything was self explanatory...but I guess I was wrong.

Also? Most debates have a pair of opening statements, both of which present their case before moving on to the response rounds. Not only did you just decide to skip your own opening statement and head straight for a response, but what would those response rounds be in response to if not for what was already presented?

I told you specifically that my aim was to refute all evidences that would you present for evolution, and I honestly felt I didn't need an opening statement to do that. When WLC presents his opening argument, it consists of a small piece as an intro, and the main BODY of the opening argument consists of his "evidential" presentation. After completion, his opponent walks to the podium and also begins with a small piece as an intro, and then he PROCEEDS to rebut WLC's arguments.

That's what I am used too.

So, did you not read the rules I suggested? Because, to be clear, this is what happened: I linked you to some rules, you agreed, posted out of turn, and then got shitty with the admins and myself when we tried to correct the problem. If the reason you didn't follow the rules really was your own misunderstanding, then getting pissy with CD was a real asshole move.

I will admit I didn't read the rules and I only got pissy because I felt the debate was going well according to my understanding.

Oooh, so you just wanted to outright dismiss the parts that disagreed with you, while strutting around during the bits that agree with you.

That is what happens with you are dealing with a concept that has lots of lies mixed in with lots of truths...you have to strut around the lies to get to the truth.

So... you don't know anything about cladistics? That's cool, you can just admit it. We all know you have no idea what you're talking about already, you don't need to hide it.

"...a concept that has lots of lies mixed in with lots of truths"

And you just decided it was meaningless based on... what, exactly? Your own inability to understand it?

It is meaningless based on the established scientific method.

Because to someone who's actually well versed in the terminology and methodology of biological science, it has a lot of meaning. That's why it's so funny whenever you wave things off as bio-babble; the people who actually study this stuff understand it just fine. The one who doesn't understand it at all is the one who makes up his own terms and then insists that everyone else use them like a toddler.

What is your single most best evidence for the theory of evolution? Enough talk.

You don't support your claim that it's babble, you don't give us any indication that you have education sufficient to label it that, and your conduct thus far gives us no reason to believe you understand even the simplest of facts; from the outside looking in, all the word "bio-babble" is is an- apparently unintentional!- admission that you are both unwilling and unable to understand the science you think you can disagree with.

Again, it is bio-babble because its concepts are meaningless in light of an established scientific method. Science is supposed to be based on observation and repeated experiment, and we've never seen anything come close to the archae changes that evolutionists believe happened millions of years ago when no one was around to see it (conveniently).

---

Please point us here to a scientific research/paper (other then "I cannot wrap my mind around it, therefore it's not possible" assumption) which proves that there is something inherently contradictory about an infinite regress.

The reason why I know it isn't possible is because I CAN wrap my mind around it. But what I can't wrap my mind around is the question of how something can happen in reality, but can't happen in a simple thought analogy.