Take a look at the rationale that this clown is using to avoid my points.
Pathetic, but perhaps I let him have it for it with a little too much enthusiasm... ;)
I can't resist bringing this quote in here though, because Dawkins and Lenny are both looking more like IDists every day... haha!
Richard Dawkins said:
On an even larger scale, it’s frequently stated that we’re somehow in a privileged universe with properties “just right” for life. Thus, by the same reasoning, and the anthropic principle, it’s reasonable to invoke the possibility of multiple universes to account for that apparent improbability.
So if the multiverse and the "landscape" fails, then Richard Dawkins is an IDist by rights, because he's too lame to realize that there is a perfectly natural explanation for this that doesn't require his leap of faith to unobserved "what-if's".
Okay, I'm half tempted to give my "opponent" more credit than I originally did, because he now seems resigned to my point, but silence rather than an honest open admission typically means that they don't buy it, but they simply don't have a better argument, so their method is to sit in silent denial in lieu of a better argument coming their way. Granted, I did not at first address every point, but all along, Jon ignored the fact that my last point, (the one that he finally "acknowledged"), was also in my first post.
What I cannot fathom is how anyone reading the exchange could possibly see me as losing this argument, but the most unexpected people will sometimes come along and say something really dumb that translates to something like... You lose because you show disrespect for dishonesty in science... and/or you have a history of showing disrespect toward rabid fanatics. AND... What papers have you written?... because I can't seem to judge the validity of very simple physics or the proper avenue of scientific pursuit for myself.
And THAT is what they base their freaking opinion on...