Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

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

Oh, but I didn't just give you the link. I also directly explained the rules in my PM to you. The only way you could have avoided seeing the rules is if you both didn't read the link, nor the PM I sent you at all. So when you said what I'd sent you "looked good," I guess you were lying.

Besides, as Fidel pointed out, debates routinely function just as the rules of the debate area set out. In fact, since you seem to be such a fan of William Lane Craig, here he is in official debate using exactly those rules:





That was this year. Whoops, here's another one, and this one mirrors our rules even more closely! hock:





And here's a third! Boy, you'd think WLC would understand that he's never been in a debate where he responds to an opening statement before, and not do that! hock:





We can see two things, from this demonstration. The first is that you have literally no idea what you're talking about, even with regards to the things you're supposedly well versed in. The second is that "I've never seen it," from you in particular is absolutely not an indicator of reality.

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.

As the above should demonstrate, it's not what WLC is used to.

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.

Well then where do you get off shouting down CD and pretending that the rules were unfair to 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.

Your problem is that you never see fit to actually support your dismissals in any way. You just go "that's a lie," but you never bother to demonstrate that this is so. Why should any of us take you seriously if the extent of your argumentation is just "nuh uh!"?

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

Did you... did you just quote yourself from a few lines ago more strenuously, as though I should have known about the (baseless, fiat) sentence you had yet to say when I made my last post?

Other than that, what I said above.

It is meaningless based on the established scientific method.

How? Because, the last time I checked, the scientific method contained the standard scientific classification system, and did not contain any acknowledgement of "kinds."

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

Yes, I'm familiar with the dishonest creationist tactic of demanding that a complex conclusion built out of a number of converging lines of evidence be reduced to a single talking point. Put simply, I refuse to bow to your desire to oversimplify things into something you can strawman more easily.

The best evidence for evolution was presented in my opening statement during the debate, to which your sole response was to attempt to make up and attach something new to the definition that was never present before, and then dismiss the rest by fiat assertion. Your sad attempt to respond to my evidence does not mean the evidence just vanishes, it just means you're more in love with your "kinds" fantasy than with the facts.

By the way, do you have a definition for "kind" yet? Or haven't you made it up yet?

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).

But Chuck wasn't talking about the archaeopteryx. He was talking about the classification system that we use to organize animals, and why certain species (dinosaurs, not archaeopteryx specifically) fit in where they do.

Did you dismiss what he said as bio-babble without even reading it? Is this just like the rules of the debate?

Do you read anything at all before you disagree with it?