SoutherMan,

You have been asked:

Well???...where is the big contribution of ID???...where is all the research???

You assert that the topics are not being discussed on their merits....I challenge to you debate ID on its merits.

Actually, it means we've already won and we're driving the point home with insults.

Of course, you don't address the points alongside the insults, just the insults themselves.

I like that. I really do.

__________________
Corporation, noun: an ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.
~Ambrose Bierce

When I feed the poor, they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.

~Dom Helder Camara

Businessmen have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public.

~Adam Smith

Those are made-up BS also. Miracles are no more real than the Easter Bunny.

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

Not if the witnesses flat contradict one another. In case you didn't realize it, when witnesses in a court of law don't agree, the defendent is almost always acquitted. The fact that their versions of what happen contradict one another doesn't add to their credibility, it detracts from it.

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

Not when the witnesses cannot agree on simple things. Let's examine but a few:

Jesus sends his disciples out to preach, but in Mark they are told to wear sandals (contradicting Matthew), and are told to take a staff (contradicting Luke):

Matthew 10:9-10
Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff.

Mark 6:8-9 These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff - no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. Wear sandals but not an extra tunic.

Luke 9:3
Take nothing for the journey - no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic.

Mark has Jesus teaching only in the area of Galilee, and not in Judea, and only traveling the 70 miles to Jerusalem once, at the end of his life. Luke, however, portrays Jesus as teaching equally in Galilee and Judea. John's Jesus, on the other hand, preaches mainly in Jerusalem and makes only occasional visits to Galilee.

According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus was both tried and sentenced by the Jewish priests of the Sanhedrin. Luke has it that Jesus was [not] sentenced by them. Yet according to John, Jesus does not appear before the Sanhedrin at all.

The accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke contradict each other, even on the parts of Christian mythology which Christians consider to be the most important: The crucifixion and resurrection. They give different sets of final words, confusingly differents accounts of the empty tomb (one of them including an earthquake), and wildly different accounts of the resurrection. They're all making it up!

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

No, we were discussing evolution and your confusion of it with the origin of life.

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

To be fair to the portion in bold above, SM believes that the various authors must actually DISAGREE on pertinent facts. How one lives with such cognitive dissonance going on in one's head is beyond me.

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yes, SM, please answer the questions above.

__________________
Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. ~Potter Stewart

I don't understand how he can come to his conclusion and use "witnesses" as the endgame of the debate. His argument seems to be "the more people who witnessed it, the stronger my case becomes."

Witnesses, even in court, are often notoriously unreliable, and they rarely, if ever, "win" anything without hard evidence. Moreover, if we went by your logic, the UFO's must be true, since there are a lot of "witnesses" do them. That would be patently absurd in light of the lack of evidence.




Edit: Interesting point Mr. Ingersoll. My guess is he will just arbitrarily redefine what is an important detail to suit his needs.

The merit is that it may be the actual truth. If that is the case, if minds are closed on that possibility then the truth will never be known.