Changes

--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 20:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 20:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::To RudrickBoucher, the purported biologist:  I merely looked at the beginning of your response and already saw unclear, unsupported and unreasonable assertions. You wrote: "Truthfully, '''we''' don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the '''existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation'''; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know." First, who is "we" and why is it that we supposedly don't know. Second, you failed to refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]] (I suggest reading the page, its citations and the external links given).  Also, you failed to address [[intelligent design]] and [[creation science]] theorists arguments concerning the [[Origin of Life|origin of life]]. Instead, you "argued" by mere assertion. Given the  unsupported and inauspicious beginning to your response, I can't say I read the rest of it.  By the way, given your apparent penchant to argue by mere assertion and your apparent penchant to commit the [[fallacy of exclusion]],  are you an [[atheism|atheist]]? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true. Lastly, if you pay more attention to logical principles in the future, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 13 September 2011

::To RudrickBoucher, the purported biologist:  I merely looked at the beginning of your response and already saw unclear, unsupported and unreasonable assertions. You wrote: "Truthfully, '''we''' don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the '''existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation'''; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know." First, who is "we" and why is it that we supposedly don't know. Second, you failed to refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]] (I suggest reading the page, its citations and the external links given).  Also, you failed to address [[intelligent design]] and [[creation science]] theorists arguments concerning the [[Origin of Life|origin of life]]. Instead, you "argued" by mere assertion. Given the  unsupported and inauspicious beginning to your response, I can't say I read the rest of it.  By the way, given your apparent penchant to argue by mere assertion and your apparent penchant to commit the [[fallacy of exclusion]],  are you an [[atheism|atheist]]? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true. Lastly, if you pay more attention to logical principles in the future, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:35, 13 September 2011

:::Your response is so strange Conservative - this user isn't here to ''refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]]'' but is here to answer the 15 questions which he seems to have done a rather good job of yet you dismiss it out of hand with a strawman and by claiming it all assertion while admitting you didn't read it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:55, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Your response is so strange Conservative - this user isn't here to ''refute the [[Christian apologetics|significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible]]'' but is here to answer the 15 questions which he seems to have done a rather good job of yet you dismiss it out of hand with a strawman and by claiming it all assertion while admitting you didn't read it. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:55, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Max, your purported inability to fully understand my post is strange given my use of bold font to highlight his error and my clear commentary on his error.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:58, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Max, your purported inability to fully understand my post is strange given my use of bold font to highlight his error and my clear commentary on his error.  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:58, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::No, I understood just fine. This is a list of 15 questions ''for evolutionists'' to answer not for creationists to answer. So you can't complain when he gives you an evolutionist answer! You also failed to address the rest of his post. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:03, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::No, I understood just fine. This is a list of 15 questions ''for evolutionists'' to answer not for creationists to answer. So you can't complain when he gives you an evolutionist answer! You also failed to address the rest of his post. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:03, 13 September 2011 (EDT)