Replies

“Fail #1: you make a false assertion about the basis of my opposition to Evolution”

Wrong. Your (pl) opposition is based on your literal reading of scripture and your “Christianity”

“Fail #2: you make an assertion about ‘most Christians’, but fail to demonstrate the validity your claim.”

Most Catholics, Episcopalians, and other denominations believe evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity. Oh, that’s right—you may not think that they’re Christians. Or maybe you do. Which is it?

Fail #2.5: you appear to errantly assume that I am defined by the term ‘most Christians’.

Sorry, I don’t understand that one.

“Fail #3: you make a sweeping generalization based on false attributions and apply it to a widely varied group. Such a broad and conjured brush does not give credibility to your assertions.”

No, it’s pretty accurate.

“This is a continuation of fail #1, your presupposition is false.”

No, it’s pretty accurate.

“Seriously, quit dancing around like someone who is afraid of their own shadow and post your Catholic related question(s) as a thread.”

That’s actually a reasonable suggestion. Will you answer the question?

“Wrong. Your (pl) opposition is based on your literal reading of scripture and your “Christianity”” [excerpt]

Just because you say it over and over doesn't make it any more true.

The fact is, your above assertion denies my rejection of Evolution based on scientific and philosophical grounds.

Seriously, repeatedly telling someone that they believe something or make a decision on a certain basis (things you have now way of knowing, short of being told), in spite of them objecting (and telling you otherwise), makes you look like an arrogant idiot.

“Most Catholics, Episcopalians, and other denominations believe evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity.” [excerpt]

I'm not sure what the relevance is, but you still have not backed that claim up. Why continue parroting it?

Fail #2.5: you appear to errantly assume that I am defined by the term ‘most Christians’.
“Sorry, I don’t understand that one.” [excerpt]

I'll break it down for you.

You appear to have made the error of assuming as true something that is incorrect.

That something is the idea that I fall into the category (as defined by you) of 'most Christians'.

Reminds me of how the SRM likes to lump birthers, teapartiers, GOPers, Conservatives, etc, all into one group.

“Our inquiries into your definition of Christianity are met with the starry-eyed regurgitation of megachurch Sunday sermons. Upon further inquiry into how you rationalize your “Christianity” with other denominations, eg, Catholicism, you refuse to take a real position. Why is that?” [excerpt]
Fail #3: you make a sweeping generalization based on false attributions and apply it to a widely varied group. Such a broad and conjured brush does not give credibility to your assertions.
“No, it’s pretty accurate.” [excerpt]

Yeah, about as accurate as the claims made by the SRM.

This is a continuation of fail #1, your presupposition is false.
“No, it’s pretty accurate.” [excerpt]

Parroted like the SRM too.

“That’s actually a reasonable suggestion. Will you answer the question?” [excerpt]

Good grief!

Ok, I'll spell this out really clear.

1: Put together all your questions. (have someone spell/grammar check if you like)
Tip: avoid leading/trick questions.

2: Post it as a thread.

3: Ping me to the thread.

I'll read the thread.

If your questions are clear and straightforward, I'll take a crack at answering them.

Additionally, everyone else who wants to answer your questions will (hopefully) have the opportunity, so you won't have to go asking the same question over and over on lots of threads ;-)