You include links that have nothing (from what I can see) to do with anything being discussed
The part I bolded pretty much answers my questions.
Well, seeing as your questions have been answered and mine have not, I guess that makes us even.
I'm sorry you cannot see the correlation between a) someone redefining evolution and b) understanding some of the most rudimentary logical fallacies - though I realize you're quite likely to Google search alternative definitions to every word I'm using here and thereby try to say I'm not making sense by using definition number 2 rather than the number 1 or 3. Who exactly is wasting who's time again?
We all know who was obsessed with redefining 'evolution'. That chapter in the forum's history doesn't have much apparent bearing on this thread. Surprise surprise.
The debating tactics here typically involve shoving atheist views down the throats of evolutionists and saying, 'Look, evolution is wrong', when this isn't evolution in the first place.
That wouldn't even make sense. The evolutionists are the only ones who might shove atheism down people's throats, and they'd never say "Look, evolution is wrong."
Oh, there's a small chance they might say "Look, I can believe evolution even 'though I know it's wrong," but that's not quite the same thing, so it wouldn't count, now would it?
Interestingly, of all the evolutionist posters here thus far I can only think of one that argued in favor of atheism and even he was not a true blue, 100% bona fide atheist (more of a self-admitted agnostic, I'd say).
What a horrible thing to say about your comrade/self!
This begs the question, who exactly are you arguing against. Something tells me I don't want to know the answer.
I humbly await your condescension and arrogance forthwith and hitherto, I shall absent myself anon and by and by retire in the interim. Adieu.
Well, seeing as I'm awaiting quite a few more answers, maybe we'll see who waits longer. That way we'll still be even.
