I'm doubtful that you've actually learned this lesson because you seem to be violating it.

Your ad hominems make me laugh, as the irony is so thick.

My posts don't undermine anything Aaron says, as I'm in pretty much
agreement with him on everything he posts. I stepped back from posting
over the last week, because it was so fun to watch him completely
excoriate you.

The funny thing is, you're not even aware of the scientific literature over
the past 20 years that conflicts with your neo-Darwinistic dogma.

Please tell me again how neo-Darwinism is deterministic, that was a good one.

Of course, this ignores the fact that your point in OP has already been disproven, and your attempted point is clearly the result of ignoring evidence contrary to your beliefs.

Ironically, your continued posting actually makes my points for me quite successfully, and your attempt to use this rhetorical flourish after I've already done it makes you look derivative and lacking in creativity.

Cool, I didn't realise you were so balanced. Could you direct me to a single example of where you pointed out wrongness from your "side of the fence?" I mean, there are examples in this thread of this "wrongness", that you were undoubtedly aware of, yet your "pointing out" of it was conspicuous by its absence.

The OP's question is the most offensive, idiotic, uncivilized question that I have seen anywhere.

Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, Darwin, Newton, Gödel, Heisenberg, Einstein, Wolfgang Pauli and soooooooo many others are proof par exellance that people who believe in God are also great logicians.

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity but don't rule out stupidly.

I really don't understand why this thread is continuing so long....

P.S. By the way, Aaron W. doesn't need any help. In this thread he is Michael Jordan, the op....well, he might be Sam Bowie.

Lol @ accusations of ad hominems from someone whose opening gambit was "you're a ******". Hypocrisy much?

Your posts undermine Aaron because you share his views, but you're objectively a moron. Whenever someone who is an idiot supports your views, it serves to undermine your views, not to support them.

As for your bull**** on "neo-Darwinism", I have no idea what that is. I suspect you don't, either.

Can I rest my case now?

As far as I can tell, there are only two active theistic posters in this thread. I read one of those posters out of necessity, and I pretty much ignore the writings other one. I mean, you have 83 posts in this thread, I have 80, and the next highest is 22. So this is primarily a conversation between you and me. So I cannot complete your request based on this thread for lack of opportunity.

However, I can say that in other threads I've pointed out many things wrong with the approach to topics such as young earth creationism and other forms of religiously-based anti-intellectualism.

You can rest it whenever you want. Resting now is like taking a 6 at mini-golf and declaring that you're clearly you made the putt because how else would you be advancing to the next hole?

If you wanted to be balanced, you could have pointed out how these posters that support your position are wrong. You didn't do that.

I don't think it matters whether a poster has 1 post in a thread or 100. If he is supporting your position, and you don't want his support, make that clear. Especially for someone who is someone whose "writings you usually ignore".

You should have done it long time ago, my friend.

If you are a decent person, (and I don't have a major reason to believe otherwise) you have to apologize too....

Cheers!!!!

Actually, I asked you if you were ******ed. I'm still not sure.

I'd be willing to bet large amounts of money that I have a higher IQ than
you, and that I am higher educated, and that I have more college degrees
than you have. Ball is in your court.

Of course you don't know what I'm saying about neo-Darwinism, as you
aren't up to date on the recent literature in the field. That is extremely
clear from the idiotic things you spew in here.

I stand corrected. Please educate me on the recent literature in the field.

If I usually ignore their writings, it means I'm usually not reading them. So I don't even know whether I'm on the same side or against in any particular discussion. That's the nature of ignoring someone's writings.

I'm sorry you feel bad. But there's little I can do to help you with that.

Here is a good place to start.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/

Keep in mind, when they refer to "Modern Synthesis" they are referring
to neo-Darwinism.

"The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis. The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair."

"The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the Tree of Life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the Modern Synthesis inherited from Darwin, gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss, and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable."

"Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection 16, 17. And, with pan-adaptationism, gone forever is the notion of evolutionary progress that undoubtedly is central to the traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit."

"The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone. What’s next? The answer that seems to be suggested by the Darwinian discourse of 2009: a postmodern state not so far a postmodern synthesis. Above all, such a state is characterized by the pluralism of processes and patterns in evolution that defies any straightforward generalization 18 19."

I can only assume that you are exactly the sort of person respectable religious people (i.e. Aaron) want to ignore. He doesn't want to say it, so I said it for him.

Aaron is fully able to speak for himself, he doesn't need trolls to speak for him.

Aaron has more patience with trolls than I do, I commend him for that.

And I commend you for being the paragon of an idiot. At this juncture, I'm not even sure if you're levelling me, because I think the odds of a single human being as stupid as you have presented yourself to be are so minuscule.

We both know that you are lying out your ass with that blather,
you should just come clean and admit it, it will be cathartic for you.

Not that minuscule, then.

I'd bet you have an insecurity problem too.

d2 - not sure what you're hoping to achieve with this. Every argument here boils down to one side attacking any perceived weakness in the scientific argument but refusing to explain how they make the leap from that to "there is a god". They'll then keep hammering that to distract and embellishing language to try to look smart.

Where do you think you're actually going to get?

The leap is not just to "there is a god" but generally to some version of Christianity.

I find it humorous that the atheists in here rant about theists employing
a God of the Gaps argument, or "leaping" to conclusions, when Darwinists
do it all day long.

Take for example supposed poster-child for macro-evolution, whale evolution from a land mammal. There are a ridiculous and impossible amount of coordinated changes that have to occur for this to happen within an evolutionary time frame:

Emergence of a blowhole, with musculature and nerve control
Modification of the eye for permanent underwater vision
Ability to drink sea water
Forelimbs transformed into flippers
Modification of skeletal structure
Ability to nurse young underwater
Origin of tail flukes and musculature
Blubber for temperature insulation
Cooling system for internal testes (this would have to co-evolve, LOL)

When Darwinists are asked how all these coordinated mutations happened in an IMPOSSIBLE evolutionary time frame, they just ignore the question and
say: "Random mutations and evowwwution did it somehow"

Darwinism of the gaps argument.

Here we go with the distracting detail again. You've listed some "coordinated" changes, and then stated as fact that it's an IMPOSSIBLE time frame.

I have no idea whether it's an impossible time frame, so please enlighten me.

And yeah, still way less of a leap than "God created everything"