Well, you are incorrect in your observation and assertion. It is in my personal opinion that it does correspond.
While you are entitled to your opinion, your opinions regarding my character do not define reality. As such, it is possible for your opinions regarding my character to be wrong.
Therefore, you are incorrect or you share a different opinion which does not make it true.
Why am I incorrect? Please provide evidence to support your claim.
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.
Your analogy does not actually support your claim. You are elaborating on your previous claim regarding my character; elaboration is not evidence.
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.
Again, you are elaborating on your previous claim. You have thus far not provided evidence to show that your claims regarding the nature of my responses are accurate.
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.
Incorrect. I only ask that arguments be backed up with logically consistent supporting evidence. I do not believe such a request to be unreasonable. You have again provided no evidence to support your claims regarding my responses. Asserting that my responses fit a certain pattern does not demonstrate that my responses actually fit said pattern.
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.
Again, you provide no evidence to support your claim. Thus far I have concluded that you are not qualified to speak on the subject of evolution only because of your admission that you believe study of the theory is a
"waste of time" and that as such your knowledge of the subject is deficient. It is on that basis -- your admission that you know little of the theory -- that I have derived my conclusion that you are not credible. I do not expect that an individual have the experience or knowledge of a professor of the subject on which they speak, but I do not believe it unreasonable to expect them to have some knowledge on the subject before they claim to make credible, authoritative statements.
If I use terminology that you do not understand, then point out any words with which you are unfamiliar and I will explain them. It is not logical to complain that an individual uses terminology relevant to a subject when speaking on that subject.
and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.
I provide an explanation when I disagree with a given point, and I have cited sources on more than one occasion. If you feel that I have inadequately justified any statement, then identify that statement or statements and I will provide further detail and relevant references. Merely asserting that I engage in such behavior is not evidence that I engage in such behavior.
When, convenient I have noticed that you at times ignore the proof presented
What proofs have I ignored? Please be specific.
and then demand impossible proofs.
Please reference the "impossible proofs" that I have demanded.
I'm not going to research the exact posts, but this has been the trend.
You are admitting, then, that you are making statements regarding my behavior that you are unwilling to support with evidence. You are acknowledging that you will refuse to substantiate your claims against me.
It's a variant of the 'play dumb' rule.
You make this claim, yet you have already admitted that you will not support it.
Basically, regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in this forum, you claim the material irrelevant
When I dismiss material as irrelevant, I do so with a justification. In some cases, information provided is not relevant to the theory of evolution; for example, claims regarding the Big Bang are not a part of the theory of evolution and as such are not relevant in a discussion regarding the theory. In other cases, I note that information provided is incorrect; for example, claims that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics are
false, and it is not illogical for me to explain as such.
and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal.
You make this claim, but you do not reference any such "demands" that you claim that I have made. That you assert that I demand "impossible proofs" is not evidence that I have made any such demands.
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.
Please provide a specific example wherein I have done such a thing.
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.
Again, you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever regarding your accusations against my character or about my behavior. You have made a long list of claims regarding my postings, but you have not substantiated any one of them with relevant references. I do not believe it unreasonable to request that you reference specific postings where I have made claims that conform to your accusations; as my postings are readily accessable, my request is certainly not a demand for an "impossible proof".
"While you are entitled to your opinion, your opinions regarding my character do not define reality. As such, it is possible for your opinions regarding my character to be wrong."
*****very interesting assertion, being it is non-secuiter to the discussion at hand. I made no opinion to your character. It appears that you are fabricating your posts from no factual evidence. You are inferring that these statements are referring to "your character"? You are completely incorrect in your assertion and assumptions. You seem to be taking points of contention in a personal way, which would mean that you may have do some inter-reflection to find out why you are feeling personally, confronted....
"Why am I incorrect? Please provide evidence to support your claim."
****You have the answer for why you share a different opinion, why do you share a different opinion? Please explain....
"Your analogy does not actually support your claim. You are elaborating on your previous claim regarding my character; elaboration is not evidence."
***** This statement is certainly invalid in that as I explained no one has said anything about your character. This is a feeling or whatever, you have acquired on your own. Therefore this statemment is invalid and does not apply.
"Again, you are elaborating on your previous claim. You have thus far not provided evidence to show that your claims regarding the nature of my responses are accurate."
***** Your preceding quote is another example of using disinformation techniques. One is to present questions whereas the answer is obvious, unless the question or request is submitted for some other reason. Evidence are self evident in the posting.
"Incorrect. I only ask that arguments be backed up with logically consistent supporting evidence. I do not believe such a request to be unreasonable. You have again provided no evidence to support your claims regarding my responses. Asserting that my responses fit a certain pattern does not demonstrate that my responses actually fit said pattern."
*****Now, I can go along with this, as you have not required an elaborate response, however, you are always asking for evidence when it's plainly provided. However, I am correct in asserting that this tactic is used by disinformation artist. Since you claim not to be one, then, this would not apply to you. There it is a correct assertion. This is another example of how you are taking these posts personal backing up my previous posts that any of the posts are reflecting on your character. Just another proof that you are taking it all too personal.
"Thus far I have concluded that you are not qualified to speak on the subject of evolution only because of your admission that you believe study of the theory is a "waste of time" and that as such your knowledge of the subject is deficient. It is on that basis -- your admission that you know little of the theory -- that I have derived my conclusion that you are not credible. I do not expect that an individual have the experience or knowledge of a professor of the subject on which they speak, but I do not believe it unreasonable to expect them to have some knowledge on the subject before they claim to make credible, authoritative statements."
****** This is, I'm afraid to say it.....typical of disinformation tactics. First, you can't declare that someone is credible or not. You have proven that your credibility is questionable due to taking the posts as personal We should get back to the discussion at hand concerning evolution and not this silly bantering that you are persisting with. You ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant to truth. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics? In addition...You completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Which brings up an interesting point that an expert like yourself can explain to me.
The genus Trilophodon, (from Greek Triloph: meaning three crested, and odon: meaning tooth, refering to the molar tooth belongs to the family of Mastodons (Mammutidae) and is sometimes called Tetrabelodon or Four tusked Mastodon.
This Trilophodon was about 5 m long and 2.5 m high, if I understand correctly, and had four parallel tusks (two on the top jaw, two smaller ones on the bottom jaw) and lived from the Miocene epoch (26 million years ago) to the Pleistocene epoch (2 million years ago) in Europe, Eurasia, Africa, and North America. So, if it became extinct as the books say, when did they start evolving....? I mean has an elephant always been an elephant, or was an elephant ever a fish or whale or whatever.
"I provide an explanation when I disagree with a given point, and I have cited sources on more than one occasion. If you feel that I have inadequately justified any statement, then identify that statement or statements and I will provide further detail and relevant references. Merely asserting that I engage in such behavior is not evidence that I engage in such behavior."
*****Well, not see there you go again....taking it personal. Your behavior is fine, in my opinion and you appear to have good character. So, I wouldn't take things so personal.
"I'm not going to research the exact posts, but this has been the trend.
You are admitting, then, that you are making statements regarding my behavior that you are unwilling to support with evidence. You are acknowledging that you will refuse to substantiate your claims against me."
**** No, you are assuming things and putting words into what doesn't exist. You are also talking off the thread and not about evolution. Didn't refuse, I just don't have the time to repost what has already been posted. Just read back and you as others will see clearly.
"Again, you have provided absolutely no evidence whatsoever regarding your accusations against my character or about my behavior. You have made a long list of claims regarding my postings, but you have not substantiated any one of them with relevant references. I do not believe it unreasonable to request that you reference specific postings where I have made claims that conform to your accusations; as my postings are readily accessable, my request is certainly not a demand for an "impossible proof".
*****The remainder of your posts are irrevelent and off thread. This last one, is an obvious effort by yourself, to make these postings personal or "slams" on your character when I have clearly demonstrated that no such posting has existed. You taking it personal does not make is such......So, I suggest that to save your credibility, we should go back to the theory of evolution and back on track.