Yet another stupid evolution 'debate'

[Preechr]

I really hate breaking my own rules...

Anyways... I don't ask you to agree with every point I make. I surely would never treat you with the same false courtesy, and if you did me that way, I'd start ignoring you even quicker than talking to you made me do.

Go back and read through our previous arguments. The one thing you never do is acknowledge my points. You pick at the fringes, ignoring the main thrust of the argument. Kevin does the same thing. This is not a court of law, where you can cast enough doubt on the prosecutors case to acquit OJ. You actually have to address directly the points of your opponent.

Yours is a fine example: The evolution thread. I asked why there is not in existence a website that can clearly and concisely show me in pictures and text... maybe a flash movie or two if you wanna get fancy... the proof behind evolution. Show me the evidence, or admit to a reliance on faith and that evolution from a common species is just another religious belief. You quote yourself for me where you ever addressed that directly.

You beat around the bush quite well. That's exactly what makes talking to you so infuriating. If we are to discuss Philosophy, Sociology, Religion, Politics, News AND et cetera in this forum, you will have to adopt a more efficient form of expressing your dissent. Please don't take that as an insult, because all of this is also directed at none other than the very moderator for this esteemed corner of the internet.

In short, I make a point and you counter that point directly with a... care to guess? COUNTERPOINT. I should be able to rebut your argument effectively enough, and then WE MOVE ON. That's the part that's so difficult for you guys. I set out to explain economics, and never got past the first little bit because you guys could not move along onto more than the basics.

I do not win arguments, and neither do you. Logic wins arguments. I have told you before that arguing is a process of agreement. Agreeing to disagree is for pussies. Well, not entirely I suppose... I acknowledge that Max and I will probably never see eye to eye on humanity, and I choose not to hound him on his flawed perception of reality because I accept the fact that he is unconvinceable and that to do so would make me Vince, as haranguing him incessantly would draw defense from other members regardless of their affinity for him and eventually make me an outcast, probably causing future distrust of all preachers among the group of you, just as you all now think different of both Catholics and Samurai.

You, however, have no substantive basis in your arguments. You react to new information from your gut without any sort of need to research things further. Your intutition serves you well, generally, but I can't help imagine how much more interesting you might be with a few actual facts on your side. Pretty much the same with Kevin, but with him, he just thinks that everything he's learned so far is alll there is to learn.

From now on, I will try to help you learn better methods of argument for your own benefit. To do so, I will begin to ignore anything you post that is not a direct question focused on a point previously made. I may take the time to point out the pointlessness of some of your responses, just to help you learn what not to do, but I think something a bit more Socratic might help us both get through all the unaddressed material a bit quicker.

There's a lot of ground to cover, so I suggest you start a thread to talk about which whatever it is you feel you are so right about so I can get to the business of proving you wrong.