Replies

If abiogenesis were supposedly your sticking point, you should have been saying that up front. You weren't. What you were saying was apparently unsupportable. You don't seem to have the integrity to admit that.

If you look at the sentence you base this argument on, you will see that I said evolution needs to show not just origins but also changing life forms afterward. Abiogenesis is indeed a sticking point, but it is not the one we were talking about, and my statement was not an attempt to shift the argument. It was instead a parenthetical addition that, you are right, was unnecessary. Personally, I would prefer a single line of debate, but answering so many evolutionists on different points as broad as a general defense of ID to the specifics of irreducible complexity takes more time than I have. Bringing integrity into it adds nothing to the debate. I'm more than happy to trade points and learn from the debate--but you consistently want to make it personal. I imagine that if you and I were having this discussion over a beer, we'd end up parting friends and each stronger for the exercise. As it is, though, I'd be totally satisfied if you refrain from the personal attacks and let your information do your debating. There are better ways to point out when you perceive a shifting argument.

If you look at the sentence you base this argument on, you will see that I said evolution needs to show not just origins but also changing life forms afterward.

It does. Not only it does, but I did. To you. On this thread.

Abiogenesis is indeed a sticking point, but it is not the one we were talking about, and my statement was not an attempt to shift the argument. It was instead a parenthetical addition that, you are right, was unnecessary.

OK, it wasn't what it looked like. Now, whenever you're ready--please don't rush--you have been provided with various materials on the inadequacy of creation/ID claims regarding IC. Other claims of yours have been addressed as well. You seem to be skipping that stuff.

Bringing integrity into it adds nothing to the debate.

I recommend you experiment with it anyway, even if you have less to fire back with as a result.

I imagine that if you and I were having this discussion over a beer, we'd end up parting friends and each stronger for the exercise. As it is, though, I'd be totally satisfied if you refrain from the personal attacks and let your information do your debating. There are better ways to point out when you perceive a shifting argument.

OK, you didn't run away. Now, we still have the problem that nothing you're saying is true.

If you look at the sentence you base this argument on, you will see that I said evolution needs to show not just origins but also changing life forms afterward.

Let me reinforce a point on this. I'm going to do it with links because everyone but you has seen all this and you're beating everyone up with what you personally don't know. Thus, you have to click on the links or it doesn't work.

Things changing.

Things changing, 2.