Russ you speak about your alleged extensive background in varied fields and how your friends can confirm that you are this, that and the other thing. You do this to the point of compulsion. Why don’t you drop the claims and offer up some actual evidence (just once) rather than an abundance of emotional portrayal, attempts to disprove things and never an attempt to prove anything. Because otherwise you’re just suspending one great big smoke screen in front of the eyes of the readers and even yourself. You speak in second person like it’s going out of style, constantly heaping blame, fault and guilt on everyone but yourself. You must understand that even if everything you said were true, it’s the WAY in which you say these things that comes across as so holier than thou – and in so doing destroys your argument (again, whether it’s true or not.) Any outsider reading your posts for the first time is immediately going to think you a raving lunatic simply for the way you present your arguments. I’m not saying you’re wrong (mind you, I’m not saying you’re right either), I’m saying you really need to learn to argue better. You do know that in a proper debate class just about every strategy you rely on would give you a big fat ‘F’ in the class, right? And if you tell me that teachers who teach debate classes are also part of some grandiose conspiracy (thus permitting you to say anything you wish without abiding by any set of rules beyond your own) I swear I will shoot myself!

We’re talking about the validity of the theory of evolution, folks. Nothing more, nothing less.

Even if all the other conspiracy theories you banter about were true and indeed connected with the theory of evolution, that still has absolutely nothing to do with this argument. If you want to punch holes in an argument, punch holes in the argument – not something else (potentially related or otherwise.) And one way to convince your readers that you’re full of hot air is to conjure profligate volume after profligate volume of words words words, most of which are only vague references to the topic at best. You practice mystique to wow your audience never once realizing that the only people you’ll ever come close to convincing are those who are already on your side. Try talking to your opposition for once (no, really talking to THEM I mean), rather than your followers. Condense your thoughts, stay on target, drop the accusation fest, stop telling other people they are speaking from their hearts (i.e., emotionally) when you are so blatantly doing nothing but. Do that and you just might have a convincing argument of your own.

You would stand to benefit from learning how to properly hold a debate. Because I know you can present a much stronger case than what you’ve done so far in this thread. I know this because I’ve read some of your other posts where you provide nothing but fact. No illusions, no vague excerpts that could be interpreted to mean a hundred million different things. Just straight up fact. Here’s one, here’s two. Together they equal three. No ifs ands or buts about it. It’s when you’ve used these strategies that I’m really impressed. It’s when you veer so far off subject and banter to excessive lengths that I shake my head and ask myself what happened.

I don’t mean to seem like all I care to do in this thread is attack you, Russ. I honestly just want to see which aspects of the theory of evolution can be debunked (and which ones cannot.) And I think if anyone can do it, it’s you – not nutcases like Hovind who lie about their educational background and argue against something they haven’t even sufficiently read about. His arguments would be akin to me saying “Well if gravitation were true then how come birds don’t fall from the sky? See!? I’m right – gravity is all just a hoax!” I have to read about how gravity is even alleged to function before I try to disprove it. I can show you exact quotes of his which directly and immediately prove that he hasn’t sufficiently even read about the very thing he is trying to oppose. Do you know why I’ve gone to the lengths to even learn about these statements of his? Because of your many thoughtful and inspiring posts here. I didn’t even know who the guy was until you mentioned him to me once. And this isn’t sarcastic flattery either. I’m quite serious. I just want you to argue better.