What?

You obviously dont have a slight tentative grasp on the concept of evolution, and adhere to indoctrinated christian principles. All we have, which is obvious from the first few lines, is an opinion, heavily laced with religious principles, whereas there is no scientific background, nor and understanding of evolution, for you to even make a solid case for your statement. So, for everyone's mental facilities, just stahp kiddo. Stick to sunday school, and whatever religious stuff that lets you sleep at night. I mean, any self respecting person could dismantle your argument easily, since it attacks the concept of evolution, by addressing uncertainties that arent even concerns of evolution. Anyone with a basic understanding could counter all your arguments, but you have either bought so easily into the religious arguing point,with no grasp of debating, or the subject you wish to debate, that its adorable, and pointless, or youre just trolling.

What, in your obviously insensitive mind, caused you to assume that the mentality of a Christian is, by default, to denounce all of evolution's "scientific" claim? You claim that anyone who has the nerve to try to combat me in my reasoning will inevitable succeed, or even if the individual has only a high school educational level, they will be able to debunk my mentality, as I am often told, but the funny thing is that they haven't. If you wish to prove me wrong, please, attempt to do so, but if not, proceed to stick to your non-clever and insensible banter.

You've been proved wrong again and again, it's just that you don't seem to understand it. I don't think you will ever understand it because you don't really seem to read and comprehend what is put to you. It's fascinating really.

First, the reason i wouldnt waste my time arguing the post, is because you didnt even write it, you copied and pasted it from an utter retard, who the majority of self respecting christians dont even want to associate themselves with, he is the current day christian extremist. That man, wont even accept an invitation to debate the subjects he claims to know. 1)He was a co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) Yup creationist, that is a lawyer, with no background in science, or even religion.... Totally reliable source. 2) and is credited with establishing the wedge strategy, which aims to change public opinion and scientific consensus, and seeks to convince the scientific community to allow a role for God in scientific theory. /facepalm, if i have to explain this to you, you should have been aborted. 3)As a member of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, a prominent AIDS denialist group,[2] Johnson has argued that HIV does not cause AIDS.[3][4][5][6] TOTALLY UPSTANDING HUMAN BEING, THAT IS LOOKING OUT FOR THE WELFARE OF OTHER HUMANS 4)The clear consensus of the scientific community considers Johnson's opinions on evolution and AIDS to be pseudoscience In other words, the scientific community thinks he is a retard, and anyone who post his words, or thinks like him, well they, the scientific community thinks they are retards as well by association. So, why waste my time, in arguing against a position, that even the scientific community thinks is retarded.

You're taking the bait [i]hard.[/i]

I explained this to him already but he didn't understand.

While thats most likely going to be the constant, sitting silent and never speaking up leads morons like this to believe, that the silence is just another form of agreement. Then again, creationist are fu­cking retards, so they believe anything that comes to mind.

[quote]First[ly], the reason I would[n't] waste my time arguing against the post is because you did[n't] even write it, you [just] copied and pasted it from an utter retard, who the majority of [b]self-respecting christians[/b]...[/quote]Now there's an oxymoronic statement.[quote]...don't even want to associate themselves with...[/quote]Who are these acclaimed "Christians"?[quote]...he is the current day christian extremist.[/quote]If he is, then I am too.[quote]That man, wo[n't] even accept an invitation to debate the subjects he claims to know.[/quote](1) You have made several grammatical mistakes. (2) So what? I don't want to go on an in-person debate if you requested me.[quote]He was a co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) Yup, [a] creationist [who] is a lawyer with no background in science.[/quote]You just gave us the info regarding his science related experience in this same statement.[quote]...or even religion.[/quote](1) When I asked you to attempt to debunk my thinking, I didn't ask you to question the man's credentials. (2) When you attempted to question the man's credentials, you contradicted yourself by providing us his experience on the matter. Uh...thank you. (3) He's a Christian who relies on the Bible, his knowledge, train of thought, and experience. That doesn't suffice?[quote]Totally [a] reliable source.[/quote]Strangely, I agree. =P I can even provide a list of individuals who support him.[quote](2)...and is credited with establishing the wedge strategy, which aims to change public opinion and scientific consensus, and seeks to convince the scientific community to allow a role for God in scientific theory.[/quote]And?[quote](3)As a member of the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, a prominent AIDS denialist group, Johnson has argued that HIV does not cause AIDS.[/quote]As do I.[quote](4) The clear consensus of the scientific community considers Johnson's opinions on evolution and AIDS to be pseudoscience.[/quote]I don't doubt the "atheistic" community concurs.[quote]In other words, the scientific community thinks he is a retard, and anyone who post his words, or thinks like him, well they, the scientific community thinks they are retards as well by association.[/quote]And you believe what they think? It still doesn't debunk what was written in the OP.[quote]So why waste my time arguing against a position that even the scientific community thinks is retarded?[/quote]Uh...because you're bad at it. You tackled multiple areas about the individual without even once addressing the OP. Hypocritical much? Answer:[spoiler]Yes. Yes you are. Cheerio with your illusion of superiority.[/spoiler]

So lets stop here, your first attempt is to use ad hominem. While i have already used this, im quite sure this is the basis of your argument, and therefore a waste of even taking serious. [quote]You just gave us the info regarding his science related experience in this same statement.[/quote] Wait, are you saying if i found a company, or group, in whatever field i want, i can automatically becoem a scientist, shit, i need to start the astrophysics foundation of the presidency of the world, then i can be the president of space exploration. Stahp it man. [quote](1) When I asked you to attempt to debunk my thinking, I didn't ask you to question the man's credentials. [/quote] You never asked me to genius, i stated that i wouldnt really even bother, since your thinking was plagiarized from an idiot. He doesnt have any scientific credentials other than creating a fake science group rooted in religious dogma. Just stahp man. [quote]I don't doubt the "atheistic" community concurs.[/quote] You seriously think the majority of the atheistic community believes there is no link between HIV and AIDs? Just stahp man. [quote]And you believe what they think? [/quote] Yeah i actually do, especially when discussing or learning about matters that pertain directly to science, say evolution, compared to a guy who was a lawyer, and has no fuc­king scientific background. Im mean, fu­ck, how stupid do you have to be to get this. One is an authority who understands how the scientific method works, the other is a religious zealot, who was a lawyer. Just stahp man. [quote]Uh...because you're bad at it. You tackled multiple areas about the individual without even once addressing the OP. Hypocritical much? Answer:[/quote] My original post, was that i wouldnt waste the time debating something, that is based in pure opinion, with no evidence, or understanding of science int he least to back it. Just stahp man. [quote](2) So what? I don't want to go on an in-person debate if you requested me.[/quote] Lastly, are you retarded? I was talking about the original author, he wont accept a single invitation to debate his claims from the opposition. Just stahp man. -blam!- grammar, when you have to pick on that to try and win an argument, it just means your argument cant stand alone, its called ad hominem.