A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[justlookinla]

You broke your word, plain and simple.

I have posted the link where you agreed to learn what evidence is.

Why are you so afraid to learn what evidence is?

Is that idea that frightening to you?

You've made a false claim, plain and simple. Why are you so afraid to post this alleged, claimed 'mountains of evidence'?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subduction Zone:

"I will prove it, but on my own terms.

It is obvious that you have no idea what "evidence" is. Don't worry, that is a flaw that many people, even scientists have had.

So once you agree to try to learn what counts as evidence we can continue. Until then I will simply point out that you have no idea what counts as evidence.

justlookinla: Ok.

Go!

My response was for you to "point out that you have no idea what counts as evidence". I don't care that you think that I have no idea what counts as evidence. Post your evidence, let me decide if it's valid or not. It's not for you to tell me it's valid, it's not for you to claim that it's valid and I blindly accept it, post it.

Stop evading. Stop attempting to place the blame on others for your failure.

Post your 'mountains of evidence'.

So now you want to reinterpret your response after the fact.

In your words that is not going to work.

You agreed to learn what counts as evidence.

Now try to think logically: Would it make any sense for me to give evidence to someone that does not know what evidence is?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've made a false claim, plain and simple. Why are you so afraid to post this alleged, claimed 'mountains of evidence'?

If that was true all you have to do is to call my bluff and to learn what evidence is.

Once again, why are you so afraid to learn how to tell if someone has evidence or not?

 

[justlookinla]

If that was true all you have to do is to call my bluff and to learn what evidence is.

Once again, why are you so afraid to learn how to tell if someone has evidence or not?

I don't have to learn from you what evidence is. Post your 'mountain of evidence' and let everyone decide if it's sufficient or not. Instead, you wish to define what evidence is and then post something that agrees with your pre-defined position.

Why are you afraid of rejection of your 'mountains of evidence'? That you claim you have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't have to learn from you what evidence is. Post your 'mountain of evidence' and let everyone decide if it's sufficient or not. Instead, you wish to define what evidence is and then post something that agrees with your pre-defined position.

Why are you afraid of rejection of your 'mountains of evidence'? That you claim you have.

Wrong it is clear that you do not understand what evidence is. If you knew you would not make the patently obviously false claims you make about the lack of evidence for evolution.

I am only trying to help you and you are petrified to learn something that would take only a few minutes of clear thinking by you.

I promise not to use my definition of evidence.


And again, I will not cast pearls before swine.

 

[justlookinla]

So now you want to reinterpret your response after the fact.

No, now you are attempting to take the focus from your failure to post your 'mountains of evidence' by creating a non-issue.

In your words that is not going to work.

You agreed to learn what counts as evidence.

No I did not. That's a conclusion only from your failure to provide the evidence that was repeatedly asked for.

Now try to think logically: Would it make any sense for me to give evidence to someone that does not know what evidence is?

Think about what you post. You wish limit the parameters so that whatever you post will agree with your personal parameters.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong it is clear that you do not understand what evidence is. If you knew you would not make the patently obviously false claims you make about the lack of evidence for evolution.

I am only trying to help you and you are petrified to learn something that would take only a few minutes of clear thinking by you.

I promise not to use my definition of evidence.

I am only trying to help you understand that it's not wise to claim that you have 'mountains of evidence' and then spend the last couple of days doing everything but actually posting this alleged, claimed evidence.

Post your 'mountains of evidence'. The let the readers decide if you're providing valid or invalid claims.

You're not though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, now you are attempting to take the focus from your failure to post your 'mountains of evidence' by creating a non-issue.



No I did not. That's a conclusion only from your failure to provide the evidence that was repeatedly asked for.



Think about what you post. You wish limit the parameters so that whatever you post will agree with your personal parameters.

ROFL. I have not had any failures.

We have not proceeded because the thought of learning something scares you to death.

It is extremely entertaining to watch you wiggle and protest and refuse a simple request that you agreed to do. Now you are reneging on your promise.

Typical creationist response.

Now I am not going to give you any evidence right now. I am simply going to tell you a couple of facts. Trials are always based upon evidence. In all of the recent court trials evolution has won over creationism. That is because the evidence is on the side of evolution. Judges are experts on evidence, and they always find against creationists.

I am not afraid to help you, it seems you are afraid of me. Or at the very least of learning what evidence is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am only trying to help you understand that it's not wise to claim that you have 'mountains of evidence' and then spend the last couple of days doing everything but actually posting this alleged, claimed evidence.

Post your 'mountains of evidence'. The let the readers decide if you're providing valid or invalid claims.

You're not though.

Actually it is wise when you are dealing with someone that has gone back on their word.

Come on, learn what you promised to learn.

 

[justlookinla]

ROFL. I have not had any failures.

We have not proceeded because the thought of learning something scares you to death.

It is extremely entertaining to watch you wiggle and protest and refuse a simple request that you agreed to do. Now you are reneging on your promise.

Typical creationist response.

Now I am not going to give you any evidence right now. I am simply going to tell you a couple of facts. Trials are always based upon evidence. In all of the recent court trials evolution has won over creationism. That is because the evidence is on the side of evolution. Judges are experts on evidence, and they always find against creationists.

I am not afraid to help you, it seems you are afraid of me. Or at the very least of learning what evidence is.

Where's the 'mountains of evidence'?

Anyone? Anyone?

 

[justlookinla]

Actually it is wise when you are dealing with someone that has gone back on their word.

Come on, learn what you promised to learn.

Come on, post the 'mountains of evidence' you claim to have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where's the 'mountains of evidence'?

Anyone? Anyone?

Fulfill your promise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Come on, post the 'mountains of evidence' you claim to have.

You know what you have to do first.

 

[justlookinla]

Fulfill your promise.

Stop with the evasion and take responsibility for your false claim.

 

[justlookinla]

You know what you have to do first.

You know you have to take responsibility for your failure.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Children, play nice now.

Yes, I am tired of this and will go to bed.

I started out politely pointing out a flaw of justinla's. He even seemed to agree to fix that flaw. Now he claims that he did not mean it.

I do tend to have a problem with dishonest people.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, I am tired of this and will go to bed.

I started out politely pointing out a flaw of justinla's. He even seemed to agree to fix that flaw. Now he claims that he did not mean it.

I do tend to have a problem with dishonest people.

I started with a simple request from a claim that subduction made that he had 'mountains of evidence' in response to a post that there was no evidence for the creationist view that all life is the creation of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Now subduction is attempting to create an issue that isn't an issue in order to deflect from his failure to provide this 'mountain of evidence'. His claim is essentially meaningless and worthless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I started with a simple request from a claim that subduction made that he had 'mountains of evidence' in response to a post that there was no evidence for the creationist view that all life is the creation of only naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Now subduction is attempting to create an issue that isn't an issue in order to deflect from his failure to provide this 'mountain of evidence'. His claim is essentially meaningless and worthless.

And in my first post I pointed out that you did not know what evidence is.

I gave what seemed to me to be a very reasonable answer. You would learn what evidence is and then I would give you my evidence. Learning what counts as evidence could only help you if your claim was true. Yet for some strange reason you have decided to remain ignorant about evidence.

Now seriously, if someone is going to reject someone's evidence out of hand why should anyone give him any evidence at all?

It seems to me that you are afraid to learn what evidence is. I won't give you evidence until you have learned that very simple lesson. Honestly it looks like you are terribly afraid that you are wrong.

 

[biggles53]

I will ask you again, would you accept any evidence he provided or would you dismiss it as not being evidence?

That's a rhetorical question...right?

 

[justlookinla]

And in my first post I pointed out that you did not know what evidence is.

Right, you added error upon your baseless claim that you have 'mountains of evidence'.

I gave what seemed to me to be a very reasonable answer. You would learn what evidence is and then I would give you my evidence. Learning what counts as evidence could only help you if your claim was true. Yet for some strange reason you have decided to remain ignorant about evidence.

Actually what you were attempting to do is force your parameters upon your alleged 'mountains of evidence' so that the alleged 'mountains of evidence' would pass your own personal approval.

Now seriously, if someone is going to reject someone's evidence out of hand why should anyone give him any evidence at all?

Apparently your 'mountains of evidence' is so weak that it cannot stand critical examination. You must first 'educate' folks on what evidence is, which of course agrees with your viewpoint.

It seems to me that you are afraid to learn what evidence is. I won't give you evidence until you have learned that very simple lesson. Honestly it looks like you are terribly afraid that you are wrong.

It's obvious to me that your supposed 'mountains of evidence' is so weak that you demand parameters which would disallow examination of your supposed 'mountains of evidence'.