"He made a statement specifically claiming that I will refuse to accept evidence that supports a particular position. Your suggest does not correspond with his statement."
**** Well, you are incorrect in your observation and assertion. It is in my personal opinion that it does correspond. Therefore, you are incorrect or you share a different opinion which does not make it true.
"It is not my intent to "turn statements around". You made a statement that appeared -- to me -- to suggest that you have not actually studied the theory of evolution. If you have not studied the theory, then you cannot claim to be credible when speaking on the subject."
**** Interesting response. It is in my opinion that your in fact turn statements around as you employ the principle of the willow tree. In the face of a hard wind, the willow tree just flows with the wind, the oak is blown down by standing firm against the wind. In other words, you take the retort and instead of standing firm, you break the response down, into it's smallest workable parts and then attempt to discredit using Strawmen and straw women....:)) making the response long and volumous.
You design responses very well, as a disinformation artist would do, whether it is by intent or not. The principle that you employ is widely used by taking topics of discussion which are attempts by "disinformationist", to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time.
Another tactic used is by demanding that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid or is very cleverly put down without a direct confrontation.
Although you don't overtly claim for yourself or exert yourself with authority, you do present your arguments with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
When, convenient I have noticed that you at times ignore the proof presented and then demand impossible proofs. I'm not going to research the exact posts, but this has been the trend. It's a variant of the 'play dumb' rule.
Basically, regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in this forum, you claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal.
One other very good technique that is used, whether on purpose or by "accident"....it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, maybe denying that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
Very good technique.......I applaud you. Mostly, the posts seem to be designed to cause the responder to have to "investigate" and ponder the response thus the slightest chance of the responder gaining an Epiphany or, become frustrated and not respond, thus giving you the last word.
Very intesting..
Tom