Dejideji1:


You deserve some sticks for this thrash you just spewd!

What's wrong with you?

Why do you like concluding haphazardly? Who is making unscientific claims? Are you challenging me or Dr. Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson?

I usually don't establish my arguments on logical fallacies (for instance, appeal to authority), so who I am challenging is irrelevant to the idea under scrutiny. It just so happens that YOU presented the argument as something YOU agree with, so it is eminently natural that I should address YOU, as the proponent of the argument on this forum.

Do you even have a master's degree yet in your area of study before you start challenging those seasoned PhD holders?

I normally prefer not to brag about my academic achievements/titles because I prefer my arguments to be challenged on the basis of their contents and quality, not on how authoritative my achievements make me sound. Since you asked, however, I have a PhD, and in one of the fundamental sciences too!

I gave the abstract of the book both of them wrote and you are telling me to be careful as if i conjured the whole thing.

For someone so quick and keen to challenge the academic credentials of others, you are astoundingly ignorant of citation methodologies. Ever tried removing the log in your eyes? Learn from DeepSight; the guy you've been gleefully quoting with reckless abandon.

Please check the link i gave to the full article.
You read only the abstract and made a catastrophic conclusion.

I've read it, and I stand by what I wrote. You should never invoke "intelligent design" as the elixir of unanswered questions. No amount of intellectual gymnastics will make a lazy explanation like "intelligent design" scientifically tenable. It's the same as the "God of the Gaps" argument.

Please go and read the full article before spamming my thread with thrash.

Need I remind you that you mentioned me. Mentioning people on one's thread is typically considered an invitation to contribute to the topic in question. I responded under the assumption that you were seeking my contribution, an action which I now regret in retrospect. Please refrain from mentioning me again if your preferred method of making arguments is bullying with insolent remarks, thank you!

AgentOfAllah:
What's wrong with you?

I usually don't establish my arguments on logical fallacies (for instance, appeal to authority), so who I am challenging is irrelevant to the idea under scrutiny. It just so happens that YOU presented the argument as something YOU agree with, so it is eminently natural that I should address YOU, as the proponent of the argument on this forum.

I normally prefer not to brag about my academic achievements/titles because I prefer my arguments to be challenged on the basis of their contents and quality, not on how authoritative my achievements make me sound. Since you asked, however, I have a PhD, and in one of the fundamental sciences too!

For someone so quick and keen to challenge the academic credentials of others, you are astoundingly ignorant of citation methodologies. Ever tried removing the log in your eyes? Learn from DeepSight; the guy you've been gleefully quoting with reckless abandon.

I've read it, and I stand by what I wrote. You should never invoke "intelligent design" as the elixir of unanswered questions. No amount of intellectual gymnastics will make a lazy explanation like "intelligent design" scientifically tenable. It's the same as the "God of the Gaps" argument.

Need I remind you that you mentioned me. Mentioning people on one's thread is typically considered an invitation to contribute to the topic in question. I responded under the assumption that you were seeking my contribution, an action which I now regret in retrospect. Please refrain from mentioning me again if your preferred method of making arguments is bullying with insolent remarks, thank you!

Lol, actually, you didn't answer any of the posers. I commend your sincerity on questions 1 & 2 admitting you do not know.
However, your response to question 3 as sexual dimorphism does not address the question at all. It's almost irrelevant to the poser.

Sexual dimorphism according to wiki is the condition where the two sexes of the same species exhibit different characteristics beyond the differences in their sexual organs.

The definition alone already asserts that both sexes are already existing. A further reading on the topic doesn't address the poser at all.

You didn't even attempt any of deepsight's questions. And who told you he is ignoring me? And mind you, he is a man in his forties as i was made to understand.
I only mentioned him so as to serve as an observer because in the thread he created, no atheist was able to address his posers.

That was way back in 2013, i noticed most of the Atheists we have now were not on the thread so i decided to quote him and invite the current Atheists.

I caught him viewing this thread when I created it, but nobody has addressed his posers so far that's the reason why he has not posted any comment.

Hun, you have a PhD, so it's likely you are a lecturer and must be very busy and you still have time for arguments on Nairaland.?
I think you should be more occupied with your job and family rather than arguing on trivia matters here sir.

Remember this is an anonymous forum and don't expect anyone to take what you have said serious. Anybody can claim to be anything here.

And hope you know that this is not the first time i will be engaging you.?

AgentOfAllah:

* modified pls refresh the page

You can see he is observing here......... see picture below.

You can pick on any of his questions and attempt it.