[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Strokes

You seem like you're tapping into intimidation.

Not at all, just making observations and interpreting them. And not being careful enough with the way my attitude affects my word choice.

Originally Posted by Strokes

You need to chesk out a site, because what it ultimately comes down to is that I'm a bona-fide liar who does not have any proof for the simple fact that I've not posted them, and yet I feel....possibly that opinion and a book you don't see eye to eye with will never be enough.

Almost. It's enough for me that you give some reason, any reason, for refuting a scientific theory. If you say that they're wrong because God said so through the bible, or because some philosophers/scientists who are also believers have constructed some arguments, which you agree with, then you have some foundation for your criticisms. Unstable foundations, but foundations none-the-less.

However, it still doesn't follow from either God's word nor the arguments of believers, that those scientific theories are illogical. They disagree, certainly. But illogical? That still requires that you point out where they're illogical, rather that simply pointing out a conflicting alternative.

Originally Posted by Strokes

you feel you have the more answers than anyone in this topic

Yers... I've certainly made that claim many times.

Originally Posted by Strokes

but the fact of the matter is that you will obviously not succumb to anything of little value to you in any sense, where you regard them as facts and it still remains that what I say isn't fact when you analyze it. To me, I feel that is "pointless", even in what you've uttered.

True. Well constructed arguments are of value to me. Appeal to authority is not. Unsubstantiated dismissal is not. If analysis results in a claim being proven non-factual, how can anyone be expected to accept the claim as valid?

Originally Posted by Strokes

Even so, you didn't understand what I meant when I wrote it, you said I had "no reason to refute" what I stated, and my reason should have become clear.

Well, to be clear I said you didn't show a reason, not that you didn't have one. You've now given a hint as to what your reasons are. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Strokes

I don't want to sound so like I'm leaning too far on one argument, you can say it if you like, but that's completely false.

You still haven't made an argument. You've implied one, but unless you make it explicit it still doesn't support your case.

But I suppose that might be beside the point. Are you here to make your opinion clear, and to have people understand it, and to show that it's a reasonable one, or is there some other purpose to you posting here?