> I have seen both honest and ad hominim in reply to Cummins. With
> respect to
> the ad hominim, it has been uneccessary and proven little. I
> again refer to
> such biblical references as cited above.
I provide honest replies to honest posts. However, there are some
Evolutionist crusaders who have no interest in honest debate. For example,
I posed a challenge for Evolutionists to identify any empirical example of
an indefinite increase in complexity anywhere in nature. Or, to leave out
some of the qualifiers, show me that nature can create complexity.
Of course, not one Evolutionist could answer the challenge (because nature
can't create complexity, at least nothing beyond equilibrium conditions).
Instead of any Evolutionist admitting that they have no answer, they start
trying to pick apart the challenge -- no matter how stupid they must act to
do it, such as demanding to know what simple words like "indefinite" mean
(it means that snowflakes don't count). I may have missed some replied, but
only one of them seemed like an honest response, the guy who referred to
evolution itself (but, that doesn't count because evolution is an inference,
not an observed fact). The wording of my original challenge was to close
loopholes which allow Evolutionists to provide answers that miss the point
that Evolution is foreign to nature.
I used ad hominim replies to underscore the fact that they didn't try to
provide honest replies to my messages. BTW, as long as we're talking about
ad hominim, note their hypocrisy when they dish out ad hominim attacks while
accusing me of ad hominim attacks.
> been corrected on this list
> by [name deleted], and Kevin O'Brien..I think by Pim too. I am most
> grateful to have my errors corrected.
You've identified a couple of Evolutionist Crusaders. It is in the nature
of an Evolutionist Crusader to provide help when they sense weakness that
can be exploited. They'll happily feed either the sympathetic (you) or the
naive newbie with friendly propaganda and basic corrections.