Book on evolution and intelligent design

Mojo said:
Your use of the word "obligated" implies compulsion.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Justin, why is it so damn hard for you to simply answer the original questions that people ask of you, instead pulling off this same lame evasion stunt you've been doing for so many occassions now? Don't you understand how annoying it is to start such hit&run threads where you give us basically nothing from the start, and where you don't present any thoughts that can in any way be called useful? Again, just saying something is "interesting" is so amigious both in and of itself, it requires a whole lot of previous context to have an inkling of an idea what is actually meant.

Of course, for those of us that do have all the previous context of Justin's previous posts to work with, it can be argued that he is saying "this book is great and you're all wrong" in his standard totally non-commiting manner. Not only dishonest, but cowardly so, not even daring to stand up for his views. And as always, when the questions start coming, he starts pouting for everyone not immediately agreeing with him, even though it shouldn't be any surprise.

If I wanted to make a thread about a non-fiction book (or at least a book meant to be about non-fiction), I'd first of all actually read the book in its entirety, to make sure I understood it well, and could then debate its merits and defend its points of views.

I also notice that Justin evades my actual point by focusing on how I call the book out for saying "Darwinism" in what is meant to be a degoratory manner. Which he'd have found out if he'd done what I've done, and found at least a few excerpts of the book to read. Which is the least he could have done, considering he made a thread about it. At least, it's the least he could have done if he wanted to make a point.

And that isn't even my main point in that partial sentence anyway, it's that they use the classic "evolution is opposed to religion (and specifically christianism)" strawman that that creationists been keeping up for decades now. But Justin is of course completely silent on this part, choosing instead to nitpick on something that is comparatively inconsequential.
 
Why make a thread if you don't want to elaborate on your opinions?



It seemed bizarre, until I remembered T'ai Chi was a master in intellectual dishonesty.
 
If you're the type who when they stumble upon a difficult problem would rather say "God did it" than "maybe we should look harder" then this book is for you.
 
ok, it has to be said

YOU ARE ALL EFFING TROLLS.

well, except for those of you that aren't, you know who you are.

that doesn't mean you T'ai Chi, you are a troll
 
Last edited:
What about an ambiguous opinion? You have more than one person asking you to elaborate; might one deduce from that, that one's opinion was not "basic and obvious"?
Click to expand...

This was aready addressed. No further explanation is needed or required.
 
T'ai Chi said:
This was aready addressed. No further explanation is needed or required.
Click to expand...

"It looked interesting." As "basic and obvious" opinions go, it is expressed in a bare minimum of words. The only thing missing is why it looked interesting.

Was the cover shiny? Was it a particularly large, small, or odd-shaped book, in your opinion? Did you find it in an unusual place, say, the toilet-paper roll holder? Were there words that you did not understand? Did you actually open it and look inside? (There is no indication that you did.) If you did, did you think it made any particular point? Did you think it would act as good trolling material?

You are half right; no further explanation is required, in the sense that we cannot require it of you. But if you think that your comment was thorough enough to answer any questions...well, I find it hard to belive you think this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom