RE: Recent rhetoric

Pim van Meurs (
Sat, 3 Apr 1999 16:47:48 -0800

> 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.

Cummins: I provide honest replies to honest posts.

Translation: I use ad hominem when I cannot address the issues.

Cummins: However, there are some Evolutionist crusaders who have no interest in honest debate.

You're an evolutionist crusader now ?

Cummins: 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.

And we have and furthermore you have refused to accept these responses and continue to ignore them. You also continue to ignore efforts to get you to explain your "indefinite increase in complexity" and how it applies to evolution.

Cummins: Of course, not one Evolutionist could answer the challenge (because nature
can't create complexity, at least nothing beyond equilibrium conditions).

ANd of course you have been shown wrong here. Yet you pretend that this has not happened. Is this what you call an "honest debate" ?

Cummins: 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.

Irrelevant, you abuse of ad hominem attacks remains such wether or not others do it. So how come that you refuse to engage in an honest debate?