Meh... Metabunk

Although, I suppose it might be nice to imagine some brain events emerging "randomly" from the void or being "directed" by natural selection in some way and in so doing put all the responsibility of changing or "convincing" them onto someone else.  That way you'd always be looking at other people's theories.  The drawback to that being, you'd generally be passive and would never be building up your own theories and hypotheses and worldview.  That might be more of an explanation for others apparently "galloping" over you with their worldviews than you might think.  You can't have a whole worldview based on negative theology or atomization and so forth. 

I read a little about that carefully crafted buzzword that "you" apparently collectively came up with, seems lame.  Are you honestly thinking that Darwinists who like to imagine everything as adapting or going extinct couldn't adapt or think on their feet and simply got galloped over... to the point that they couldn't even debate anymore?  In any case... that would be ironic, if so.  A satire: "I was trampled!  I could have been an intellectual predator... savage, I tell you.  It's just that, well... I was victimized in reality instead.  You should imagine that I was a predator, though!  Because we all are when we're in a pack, haven't you noticed?"  Why is the evidence that Darwinists cite almost invariably imaginary?  They could have won the debate, it's just that they didn't actually do so.  Imagine that.  They could provide experimental evidence that actually backs their vast creation myths and probably will in the future, it's just that they usually don't in reality... here and now.  And so forth.  

I read a little about that carefully crafted buzzword that "you" apparently collectively came up with, seems lame.  Are you honestly thinking that Darwinists who like to imagine everything as adapting or going extinct couldn't adapt or think on their feet and simply got galloped over... to the point that they couldn't even debate anymore?  In any case... that would be ironic, if so.  A satire: "I was trampled!  I could have been an intellectual predator... savage, I tell you.  It's just that, well... I was victimized in reality instead.  You should imagine that I was a predator, though!  Because we all are when we're in a pack, haven't you noticed?"  Why is the evidence that Darwinists cite almost invariably imaginary?  They could have won the debate, it's just that they didn't actually do so.  Imagine that.  They could provide experimental evidence that actually backs their vast creation myths and probably will in the future, it's just that they usually don't in reality... here and now.  And so forth.  

I read a little about that carefully crafted buzzword that "you" apparently collectively came up with, seems lame.  Are you honestly thinking that Darwinists who like to imagine everything as adapting or going extinct couldn't adapt or think on their feet and simply got galloped over... to the point that they couldn't even debate anymore?  In any case... that would be ironic, if so.  A satire: "I was trampled!  I could have been an intellectual predator... savage, I tell you.  It's just that, well... I was victimized in reality instead.  You should imagine that I was a predator, though!  Because we all are when we're in a pack, haven't you noticed?"  Why is the evidence that Darwinists cite almost invariably imaginary?  They could have won the debate, it's just that they didn't actually do so.  Imagine that.  They could provide experimental evidence that actually backs their vast creation myths and probably will in the future, it's just that they usually don't in reality... here and now.  And so forth.