Fascinating, for one you assume I only saw two chapters despite more than that being available to view for free and I think I even commented on points in more than two of the chapters...
No assumptions here, because you said:
There are after all a few chapters which are available to view for free, I cannot watch the rest of it without paying.
Emphasis added. Two chapters is all he makes available! You must be stretching the truth...
Second of all your reasoning unless you have left something out would mean someone who watched 104.5 minutes of the video would not be allowed to comment because they hadn't watched the last 30 seconds which might contain all their earth shattering argument.
No. Because I said:
Your opinion doesn't matter until you have seen a majority of the film
....
You have no way to be able to say that when you've missed a majority of the video. You are just guessing and being prejudice, I might add.
I said it to you twice in one post.
And regardless if the first 23 minutes is an argument from ignorance why can't I say that he relies heavily on arguments from ignorance? I'd have thought approximately ~1/5 of the time spent would qualify for use of the term heavily relies.
Why don't you give an example of an argument from ignorance? By all means. You aren't able to follow our simple dialog, I doubt you were keeping up with his.
But to answer the question,
YOU CAN'T say it because YOU DON'T know! Why is that so hard to get? You don't know! You never saw it. You lack the knowledge. You are uninformed. You are void of data. I need a thesaurus, because surely one way or another I will get it through you head that you just don't know.
I do because he signposts and labels his chapters, if he comes back to those points later it is hidden within a chapter not dedicated to such and would be a stupid structuring of the video.
That doesn't give you the magical ability to foresee the rest of the DVD. All you are qualified to assert is what you know he said... assumptions are only your imagination at work.
You can make assumptions all you want but at least be grown up enough to admit you don't really know what you are talking about.
Pot meet kettle. I'm consistent with how I judge things, I'd be extremely surprise if you everything in life the way you expect me to treat this video. But calls for special treatment of creationists is nothing new.Isn't that what I commented on in the first place? Didn't I specifically point out examples of what I was talking about?
Pot meet kettle... wow. I have never been less offended in my life because the source of the comment has lost all credibility.
I hope you don't work as a scientist or in the medical field. If this is how you come to conclusions then look out world. Tyrathca is on a mission to get minimal information and draw drastic conclusions.
Why not actually put forward a comment based on what I criticised rather than continuing your ridiculous rant about whether or not I can criticise?
Didn't you see the end of the last post to you?
You could just admit your ignorance... I keep pointing it out, and you keep covering it with excuses. You may call it a rant, I call it a big embarrassment for you. More than once you admitted that despite ample ignorance on a subject you are still qualified to make reliable remarks against the it.
The quote above, when you said "I'm consistent with how I judge things, I'd be extremely surprise if you everything in life the way you expect me to treat this video," says it all. You are consistent in your judgments, and you are consistent with your prejudice...
By all means, give us a list and the modern scientist and their contributions to the study of origins, and I'd be very happy to save it for future reference.