Intelligent Design

A-Mat Grunts; Thinks He Argued

Spread the love

In response to my last post A-Mat timothya writes:

“If You are Going to Reject Something, At Least Take the Time to Understand What You Are Rejecting”

Absolutely agree. Evolutionary biology would be a good place to start.

Timothy, it is easy to be a smartass.  Making cogent arguments, not so much.  You appear to be suggesting that those who disagree with evolutionary biology do not understand it.  That is a mere assertion (an unspoken one at that).  If you are going to make an argument, as opposed to a splenetic grunt, you will need to demonstrate where an ID proponent failed to understand an evolutionary concept he rejected.

 

 

6 Replies to “A-Mat Grunts; Thinks He Argued

  1. 1
    asauber says:

    Evolutionary biology would be a good place to start.

    As ET suggested in the other thread, Evolutionary biology is a horrible place to start.

    Andrew

  2. 2
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Absolutely agree. Evolutionary biology would be a good place to start.

    There’s an open invitation to explain your theory, answer the criticisms, and clear up misconceptions and confusion that we see among evolutionists themselves.

    Ok, fair enough – if the theory itself is incomprehensible, then nobody can truly understand it.

    If that’s what you’re saying about evolution, I think we can agree with you.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    As it was in Euler’s day, the atheist remains the same.

    A DEFENSE OF THE (Divine) REVELATION AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS OF FREETHINKERS, BY MR. EULER
    Excerpt: “The freethinkers (atheists) have yet to produce any objections that have not long been refuted most thoroughly. But since they are not motivated by the love of truth, and since they have an entirely different point of view, we should not be surprised that the best refutations count for nothing and that the weakest and most ridiculous reasoning, which has so often been shown to be baseless, is continuously repeated. If these people maintained the slightest rigor, the slightest taste for the truth, it would be quite easy to steer them away from their errors; but their tendency towards stubbornness makes this completely impossible.”
    http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/.....2trans.pdf

  4. 4
    kairosfocus says:

    Let’s hear the response . . .

  5. 5
    Mung says:

    Silver Asiatic:

    Ok, fair enough – if the theory itself is incomprehensible, then nobody can truly understand it.

    Theories. Plural. There is a plethora.

  6. 6
    Florabama says:

    A-Mat and the rest, need a new talking point. “You just don’t understand evolution,” is old, tired, empty rhetoric, but it remains one of their first retorts. I learned long ago, that once you get past the rhetoric, Darwinists are empty suits, but that is what you would expect from those devoted to a “science,” made up of just-so stories and narrative.

Leave a Reply