Aaah, refusal to address the points made by the opponent, how evolutionist of you!
Why do you destroy your credibility by trolling?
I *did* "address the points made by the opponent", as you well know -- as anyone would know who bothered to read my post.
And you *did* read it, because you responded to it. (Unfortunately, you chose to respond to it with another troll which purposely took disconnected fragments of my argument out of context then pretended to misunderstand it -- grow up.)
But when Phaedrus had no better comeback but to repost, *verbatim*, his/her original post -- which I had already addressed -- then a link back to my original rebuttal is all that's necessary.
I repeat the question -- why do you stoop to trolling? Out of actual substance already?
You mean the following all purpose excuse for Darwin's charlatanism?
Pointing out the as yet untested implications of the theory and laying it out for consideration and testing is not "sophistry", it's how science is done.
Seems that the above rhetoric is clearly refuted by Phaedrus's:
"As possibilities were promoted into probabilities, and the probabilities into certainty, so ignorance itself was raised to a position only once removed from certain knowledge. When imagination exhausted itself and Darwin could devise no hypothesis to explain away a difficulty, he resorted to the blanket assurance that we were too ignorant of the ways of nature to know why one event occurred rathar than another, and hence ignorant of the explanation that would reconcile the facts to his theory..."
As anyone with half a brain knows, the method shown in the above paragraph is not science, it is sophistry and your 'pre-response' in no way addressed it. In fact, it is just the kind of charlatanism that is being talked about in the discussion Phaedrus gave of the Origins not being science. It is also the kind of rhetorical fluff used by evolutionists throughout these threads to cover up the truth which is - evolution is bunk.