The people deserve to know!

[Fitz Tayo]

Yeah, I doubt anybody here bar Sling thinks evolution doesn't exist so... y'know, Shh.

[Sling]

Well some parts of it are true, I'm not going so far as to say it's comlete bollocks becuase that wouldn't be true. Oh, and JLAF I won't ignore your stupidity and immense ignorance and idiocy completely I just advise you to take the time and effort to actually READ the post. But as I've said time and time again, there is no overwhelming evidence to prove Evolution, just like their is no overwhelming to prove the existance of God. So make up your own damned mind on what you want to believe, I don't really care. This topic has gotten boring now, someone should go back to the orginal topic otherwise I think I'll just not bother reading any more responses.

[Strayed Wanderer]

Well some parts of it are true, I'm not going so far as to say it's comlete bollocks becuase that wouldn't be true. Oh, and JLAF I won't ignore your stupidity and immense ignorance and idiocy completely I just advise you to take the time and effort to actually READ the post. But as I've said time and time again, there is no overwhelming evidence to prove Evolution, just like their is no overwhelming to prove the existance of God. So make up your own damned mind on what you want to believe, I don't really care. This topic has gotten boring now, someone should go back to the orginal topic otherwise I think I'll just not bother reading any more responses.

Translation ----> I lost

I've avoided making fun of him this whole time, I'm allowed at least this.

[JLAF]

Well some parts of it are true, I'm not going so far as to say it's comlete bollocks becuase that wouldn't be true. Oh, and JLAF I won't ignore your stupidity and immense ignorance and idiocy completely I just advise you to take the time and effort to actually READ the post. But as I've said time and time again, there is no overwhelming evidence to prove Evolution, just like their is no overwhelming to prove the existance of God. So make up your own damned mind on what you want to believe, I don't really care. This topic has gotten boring now, someone should go back to the orginal topic otherwise I think I'll just not bother reading any more responses.

There is no evidence to prove the existence of God period. And some people have sense enough as to not read five and a half pages of type by someone who has already shown himself to be ignorant and exceedingly sophomoric in the area which he is addressing. In other words, reading that would be an utter wast of time.

[Sarcasm]

Or in other words, JLAF, you are saying that you refuse to even hear your opponent's side, or lack the attention span required to read a short block of text.

While Sling has presented his point in a rather. . . horrible, fashion. (the point itself was not very good, either) he has actually bothered to hear his opponent's side and attempt to counter it with, hear this, logic. not ignorance. (well, mostly, heh.)

While I believe that Sling is wrong, he, unlike yourself, has a better grip on rhetorics.

Amazingly enough, one that goes beyond the idea of "I am right, you are wrong, lalalalalala, I can't hear you!" (Yet again, mostly)

[Shindy]

our science is great. science be praised!

[JLAF]

Or in other words, JLAF, you are saying that you refuse to even hear your opponent's side, or lack the attention span required to read a short block of text.

While Sling has presented his point in a rather. . . horrible, fashion. (the point itself was not very good, either) he has actually bothered to hear his opponent's side and attempt to counter it with, hear this, logic. not ignorance. (well, mostly, heh.)

While I believe that Sling is wrong, he, unlike yourself, has a better grip on rhetorics.

Amazingly enough, one that goes beyond the idea of "I am right, you are wrong, lalalalalala, I can't hear you!" (Yet again, mostly)

I've read every post other than that one. I refuse to read something 5 1/2 pages. If someone lacks the ability to present their information in a manner which is suitable for the reader, the reader will likely try and make do without that exact information. I am forced to wonder now, did you even read the post Sarcasm? (It doesn't count if you just read it to avoid being a hypocrite, for reasons you'll understand later.) I can tell you Jeramyu did not because he quotes the first and last paragraphs and only addresses these. Did ANYONE read this post? And if NO ONE read the post and you cannot comment unless you have, does that mean that if you make your post long enough you automatically win any arguments?
I could make this post last 50 pages and throw in a new point somewhere in every segment of 25 paragraphs and you would, by your own logic, be forced to concede to me because I assure you that you would not read it all. And while Sling may not do this intentional as I would have, it has the same ends. Frankly, I find the demand that a symmetrization be created or the post not be read perfectly reasonable. Especially when you consider that it will increase the amount of people who can participate.

[EmperorJeramyu]

You also have to consider that he rather obviously copied and pasted that entire block of text from somewhere without leaving a source. He's not even really making an argument, considering that was the only part of his post with any sort of merit. Copying what someone else wrote, a sure sign of weakness in belief, along with his ready willingness to admit his example was half-assed (why bother making it, then?). Why bother reading it if it isn't his words, anyway? I did a bit of research and supplemented my post with definitions and EXPLANATIONS, that helped give credibility to my views, not an entire freakin essay that said everything for me.

And to think, I was actually going to lead off the second page by chastising teenr0cker for his irritating post on what I could've done with my speech, despite the fact that making the speech itself was far and above what anyone else would do.

[Sarcasm]

Actually, about 5/6 of it is copied
Not that it matters much, though.

He has presented his point in a few lines of text, and instead of attempting to prove what much greater man in the far past already have (or rather, think they have) he has simply quoted them.
Though, suspiciously enough, he seem to have "forgotten" to link his sources.

Jera, your view on rhetorics is different from Sling's (and I have to admit he used his in a halfassed way) but his is just as valid as yours.

While Sling is clearly wrong (in my opinion) he, unlike a certain person, has at least tried.

[Shindy]

Mmm... The thing is, EVERY forum that I've ever hung around has the exactly same topic as this after a certain point, almost VERBATIM... It starts out innoculous and friendly enough, but things ALWAYS go downhill. Eventually the topic is locked by a mod when it gets out of hand. I'm just going to spare you all the shouting match and take the initiative here.

[Sarcasm]

Heh, I hate it when people start to stop a conflict for the sake of stopping it.

So what if we get nothing out of it but a lot of flames and a few insightful posts? the whole thing is worth it just for these few rare posts.

[Fitz Tayo]

No it isn't.

[JLAF]

While Sling is clearly wrong (in my opinion) he, unlike a certain person, has at least tried.

You know what I find more humorous about this whole thing? When ever I make a post against someone, their response is never brought to the main point of the post (in which I explain why they are wrong), but instead to a side note. I have yet to here about what's wrong in my pure logic "proof" of evolution (which isn't a real proof mind you), nor my reasoning for why I should not have to read sling's post. Therefor, I must conclude that neither Sling nor Sarcasm HAVE no argument, and are avoiding the subject. While this is likely false, until I here otherwise I will continue with this idea.
PS. Sling wrote a little less that a page and pasted the read, likely without reading it. I did not read what he pasted either and wrote a little over a page. Explained to me why Sling has tried and I have not again?

[Sarcasm]

I have already answered your questions, but I'll repeat myself if you insist.

Your proof, as you have put it, is valid.
However, refusing to hear your opponent's side is not acceptable.
Is that clear enough?

Then again, I have no argument, as you have put it, and you are simply going to ignore this post because it contains over 3 sentences, so it seems I am simply wasting my time.

[EmperorJeramyu]

He has presented his point in a few lines of text, and instead of attempting to prove what much greater man in the far past already have (or rather, think they have) he has simply quoted them.

You could say that, but it's real obvious he doesn't have any solid faith in his arguments, and instead is simply on that side because it's where he just happened to end up. That is WHY he quoted someone else almost entirely for his argument. It lines up nicely with my original assertion: He has no clue what he's talking about. It's called "stubbornness".

Jera, your view on rhetorics is different from Sling's (and I have to admit he used his in a halfassed way) but his is just as valid as yours.

Maybe it's this "science" part of me again, but I think doing research and citing sources is FAR more valid than half-assed arguments and exclusively pointing someone else's research (whilst giving a metaphorical shrug of the shoulders, I would imagine).

While Sling is clearly wrong (in my opinion) he, unlike a certain person, has at least tried.

I disagree. Copying an entire essay of someone else's words does not count as trying.

Mmm... The thing is, EVERY forum that I've ever hung around has the exactly same topic as this after a certain point, almost VERBATIM... It starts out innoculous and friendly enough, but things ALWAYS go downhill. Eventually the topic is locked by a mod when it gets out of hand. I'm just going to spare you all the shouting match and take the initiative here.

I think this debate is still in the realm of civility.