[quote]This is a very clear and well written response...[/quote]This is where I say that I've met three types of atheists that end up contradicting each other. The person that you recently replied to asked that why would the activity of cyclical evolution be an issue. To which you responded that his statement is a clearly, well-written response. One group of atheists assume that evolution's cyclical is true; that is, evolution is evidently cyclical. Another assumes that it isn't because it would mean that evolution may automatically correct itself from diverging from its species' original form, and the last group, which is a group isolated by itself, are agnostic deists (the denotation is self-explanatory). Agreed, the response is well-written. To which I would respond, "So what?" Is what he said true and supported by evidence? The second group of atheists is the only group I know to be truelly atheistic. All other groups have adopted some hybrid relationship among the many humanistic philosophies and religious beliefs. Anything deviating from its roots is adding to the speculation and not the debate.[quote]...but I'm afraid the person you are talking to has had this subject explained to them very carefully numerous times...[/quote]Very inadequately from you.[quote]...and is either incapable of understanding...[/quote]Oh I'm fully capable of understanding.[quote]...or they're just playing dumb.[/quote]Bigotry.[quote]He told me he had no idea why the original article didn't overturn evolution theory.[/quote]To which I responded (if I haven't already), "You don't and shouldn't need only the OP above to see the evolution as it really is: To an extent, it is an excellent form of human pseudoscience."

Ah, right on cue. You still trying to work out that difficult sentence on the other thread?

What?

Where?