A Question Rgarding Embedded Age

[Subduction Zone]

I haven't broken anything. You made an apparently false claim, you are the person who must deal with that.



I haven't broken anything, you've failed to provide this 'mountains of evidence' for quite a while now.



Post the conversation. Point out the issue you're having. You're simply grasping at straws in an attempt to negate your false claim. I've tested you for many posts now and you've received a failing grade for following through on a claim you made.

Really? I have posted your agreement several times:


http://www.christianforums.com/t7271368-17/

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone View Post
"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."
Ok.

Go!

The "Ok

Go!' is from you.

You broke your word

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, not true. The claim was made that he had 'mountains of evidence', then he immediately started equivocating. The request is simple, provide the evidence. Then it's up to me to accept or reject it.

It's not going to be provided.

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

 

[justlookinla]

Really? I have posted your agreement several times:


http://www.christianforums.com/t7271368-17/



The "Ok

Go!' is from you.

You broke your word

The "Ok Go!" was simply responding to your typical arrogant manner of posting that you were going to point out my ignorance on what evidence is.

 

[justlookinla]

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

You've made that claim several times.

Where's the 'mountain of evidence'?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The "Ok Go!" was simply responding to your typical arrogant manner of posting that you were going to point out my ignorance on what evidence is.

That is your fault for being arrogant. I thought you were being honest.

Remember when I asked if you were honest or not? It is becoming more and more obvious that that was not an "attack on your honesty".

Oh wait, you thought I was being arrogant. No, I was just being honest. You were being arrogant.

I know, arrogant people often make that mistake.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've made that claim several times.

Where's the 'mountain of evidence'?

Finish what you promised to do. Call my bluff. Learn what counts as evidence.

Or are you afraid?

 

[justlookinla]

That is your fault for being arrogant. I thought you were being honest.

Remember when I asked if you were honest or not? It is becoming more and more obvious that that was not an "attack on your honesty".

You obviously didn't learn the lesson from me concerning the absurdity of such a question.

Oh wait, you thought I was being arrogant. No, I was just being honest. You were being arrogant.

I know, arrogant people often make that mistake.

Well, now you're into evasion mode.

 

[justlookinla]

Finish what you promised to do. Call my bluff. Learn what counts as evidence.

Or are you afraid?

The only person afraid is you. For some reason you're afraid to have your 'mountains of evidence' critically examined.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You obviously didn't learn the lesson from me concerning the absurdity of such a question.

The question is only absurd to a dishonest person.

Well, now you're into evasion mode.

Nope, that would be you. I have said more than once call my bluff.

Learn what is evidence and why.

Is that thought really that frightening to you?

I am more than willing to give you the evidence once you honor your word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The only person afraid is you. For some reason you're afraid to have your 'mountains of evidence' critically examined.

I have no fear. I have been consistent from the start.

You agreed to learn what evidence is. Now you want to reinterpret your response.

I have patience. I can link your promise again and again.

 

[justlookinla]

The question is only absurd to a dishonest person.

Amazing.

Nope, that would be you. I have said more than once call my bluff.

I called your bluff when you claimed to have 'mountains of evidence'. Since then, you've been in evasion mode.

Learn what is evidence and why.

Is that thought really that frightening to you?

I am more than willing to give you the evidence once you honor your word.

My word was to give this 'mountains of evidence' you claim to have. Your response has been evasion and failure.

 

[justlookinla]

I have no fear. I have been consistent from the start.

You agreed to learn what evidence is. Now you want to reinterpret your response.

I have patience. I can link your promise again and again.

Yes, I've been consistent since you made the apparently baseless and worthless claim that you have 'mountains of evidence' that all life we observe today is the result only of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Believe me, I have patience also. Let's keep your failure to provide what you claimed you had, 'mountains of evidence', at the forefront.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Amazing.



I called your bluff when you claimed to have 'mountains of evidence'. Since then, you've been in evasion mode.



My word was to give this 'mountains of evidence' you claim to have. Your response has been evasion and failure.

You did not call my bluff.

To call my bluff you have to learn what evidence is.

Have you done that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I've been consistent since you made the apparently baseless and worthless claim that you have 'mountains of evidence' that all life we observe today is the result only of naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Believe me, I have patience also. Let's keep your failure to provide what you claimed you had, 'mountains of evidence', at the forefront.

You do not know if my claim is worthless.

I told you what you had to do yesterday to see my evidence.

It is getting late. You can spam the threads here all that you want.

Tomorrow I will point out how you ran away from an agreement that you made. I have it bookmarked.

You could have learned what evidence is four times over. There is no point for me to post evidence when you will simply deny it without knowing wheher it is evidence or not. That is why you first have to learn what counts as evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

You did not call my bluff.

To call my bluff you have to learn what evidence is.

Have you done that?

You made a baseless, and apparently false, claim that you had 'mountains of evidence'. I called your bluff on that baseless, and apparently false, claim.

Now you're doing all you can to evade the truth.

Face your failure.

 

[justlookinla]

You do not know if my claim is worthless.

I know for the past couple of days it's been worthless.

I told you what you had to do yesterday to see my evidence.

It is getting late. You can spam the threads here all that you want.

You can evade all you wish.

Tomorrow I will point out how you ran away from an agreement that you made. I have it bookmarked.

You could have learned what evidence is four times over. There is no point for me to post evidence when you will simply deny it without knowing wheher it is evidence or not. That is why you first have to learn what counts as evidence.

Tomorrow, I'll point out your false and worthless claim you have concerning 'mountains of evidence' and how you've equivocated and evaded for the past couple of days.

I'll point out that your claim that you have 'mountains of evidence' is meaningless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know for the past couple of days it's been worthless.

No, that has been your baseless claim. And it has only been one day.

You can evade all you wish.

I have never evaded. That has been you. You agreed to learn what counts as evidence and then you reneged on your word.

Tomorrow, I'll point out your false and worthless claim you have concerning 'mountains of evidence' and how you've equivocated and evaded for the past couple of days.

I'll point out that your claim that you have 'mountains of evidence' is meaningless.

And I will support my claims with quotes and links. You have done neither.

When I am willing to quote and link both my posts and your posts who do you think people will believe? The person that can support his claims with links or posts or the person who merely denies the other's claims?

 

[Dizredux]

It is hard to discuss a subject if one party appears to take the more or less nihilist position that evidence is meaningless.

What always needs to be done in a rational discussion is to define the terms, in this case "evidence".

Just, how can you have any discussion of evidence if you will not work with SZ to establish the definition and use parameters of the term.

To avoid this is strongly suggestive of your running away.

So get with SZ and between the two of you come up with some kind of agreement on what evidence is and how to deal with it.

To do otherwise will reflect badly on you to casual readers.

Dizredux

 

[Kylie]

I don't do links. Take the first one, post their position and let me examine it. Not just part, not just quote mining, but their entire position concerning evolution and their viewpoint of God being involved in the process or not.

Why don't you do links? You want people to cut and paste entire articles because you don't want to go to another page to read exactly the same thing? You demand that we bring it to you?

What's up with that?

 

[RickG]

I'll point out that your claim that you have 'mountains of evidence' is meaningless.

Try this. Go to Google Scholar, search biological evolution. What did I get, 3,120,000 hits. Kind of hard to see all the mountains when you are covered in them.

biological evolution - Google Scholar