When people attempt to tell a lie that is so obviously a lie, the only intellectual tactic they can resort to is "distraction". If they are desperate, they will often resort to character assassination as well.
I agree. I deem the evolution theory a weak theory because these types of tactics have to be resprted to in order for a evolutionist to keep control over a debate that he or she is losing.
If not, would an evolutionist be so kind in explaining how name calling, personal attacks, and categorizations actually prove evolution? And where is such scientific methods in proving a theory written?
The way I see it. Science has exalted evolution to a level in theories (scientific theory) that it cannot maintain or acheive. But in their attempt to keep it at that level when evidence will not do. Is to attack any challenger by using the tactics listed above. Why else do it unless there is nothing else to resort to?
Example: If a school put a B,C student on the A,B honor role. They would have to break the rules in order to exalt that student to that level, correct? And if the person doing to did not want to admit to any wrong doing. How would they stop any challengers to their decision until a higher up person takes notice?
They would start by saying: You don't understand how the school grading system works. You are not as educated as I am so shut up. You are ignorant. You are stupid. You are an uneducated moron.
And all that was the only thing they could resort to, to defend what they did because no arguement can be made by the rules of how the A,B honor role works because they broke them all by exalting the one student to a level they did not belong in, or did not achieve.
So when these tactics are used by evolutionists to defend the theory, this is what I see. A theory that cannot be defended on the bases that it has been exalted to. And therefore, it's defenders have to defend it by other means.
Now I'm not claiming that evolution is not a theory. I am claiming that it's exaltation to a scientific theory was a bit premature. And this is why there is such debates where such tactics are resorted to. Because the higher a theory goes on that scale, the more scruntiny is required. Those tactics often resorted to prove that the theory cannot stand up to this scruntiny. Or the challenges a theory most be able to withstand to hold such a position.
If I'm wrong. Then explain why such tactics are needed in these debates, that are not even remotely scientific?
