TrueTomHarley

Demented moron.

You have triggered one of these silly fallacies Michael Shermer carries on about, dressed up in Latin verbiage to make clear that whoever uses it is educated.
In English, it means, “just because I don’t have the answer to something, that does not mean that your answer is correct. (“Fallacy of negation,” I think it is. My bad—no Latin)
It is a fallacy to be employed when you are criticizing a evolutionist position. It MAY NOT be employed for the opposite position, criticizing one who thinks creation. 
Therefore I will let the question stand, with the caveat that it doesn’t mean anything, as it wouldn’t were it used to criticize evolution.
This is very much like when @AlanFcarries on about no poop being found in the Sinai desert and thinks he has struck logical pay dirt. Yet when you cite something contradictory in his evolution mantra, he will wag his head and cry “fallacy of negation.”
@Araunais right. It is almost like the priesthood of a religion—abounding in so many ‘heads I win/tails you lose’ scenarios.

Yes. A turd is a turd is a turd. No way is it a diamond.
Down with Mommy Macro.

Maybe there will be a short squeeze come into play.

Whoa! It’s like hearing that the king of the north is now Bolivia!

Whoa! It’s like hearing that the king of the north is now Bolivia!

Whoa! It’s like hearing that the king of the north is now Bolivia!

Whoa! It’s like hearing that the king of the north is now Bolivia!

Gasp!!
You don;t suppose Alan was that alien, do you? That would account for mankind’s inability to live together with civility on the planet.
Beats the pants off any evolution theory, methinks.

This doesn’t entirely make sense. If it is true, then the JW mentioned is an atypical outlier. The suit would certainly not have Branch support. The Witnesses overall consider alternative service laws a very good bargain and are appreciate of them. Typical of their responses is this:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/taiwan/successful-alternative-service-conscientious-objectors/
As to individuals, I have never heard anyone speak against such laws. Instead, every instance I know of is people likewise appreciative of them and glad to cooperate. Like this Russian brother in the Heart and Soul broadcast: (It is one remark in a 30 minute program, probably not worth the time to search it out, but the program is worth streaming on its own merits.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct1659
The wording is odd: “The petitioner has been known as a believer of Jehovah's Witnesses, who was recognized by the Supreme Court as a conscientious objector last year.” Why the past tense? Probably he is ex-JW KickFace himself.

This is a little too lengthy for me, as I am involved in something else, but I’ll leave it for @Araunaor even Alan to bat around if they like.
https://bombthrower.com/articles/get-used-to-living-under-subsidiarity-after-the-great-reset/?fbclid=IwAR3Krh9t2IyaMbIDayhfpMz8nTuRJyF2f1aOixEiXUm_PEYo4s3EAOrSnsk

Okay, I wrote this up in a post. Let’s see where this goes:
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2021/01/challenging-the-alternative-service-law-it-makes-no-sense.html

This doesn’t entirely make sense. If it is true, then the JW mentioned is an atypical outlier. The suit would certainly not have Branch support. The Witnesses overall consider alternative service laws a very good bargain and are appreciate of them. Typical of their responses is this:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/taiwan/successful-alternative-service-conscientious-objectors/
As to individuals, I have never heard anyone speak against such laws. Instead, every instance I know of is people likewise appreciative of them and glad to cooperate. Like this Russian brother in the Heart and Soul broadcast: (It is one remark in a 30 minute program, probably not worth the time to search it out, but the program is worth streaming on its own merits.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct1659
The wording is odd: “The petitioner has been known as a believer of Jehovah's Witnesses, who was recognized by the Supreme Court as a conscientious objector last year.” Why the past tense? Probably he is ex-JW KickFace himself.

Two nights ago a CBS News Special interrupted a perfectly fine program that I wanted to see. “Must be important,” I told myself. Instead, it was House politicians carrying the impeachment over to the Senate for their consideration, with much pomp and ceremony of being an ‘historical first,’ even though everyone knew it didn’t stand a chance of going anywhere. And it didn’t. They’re having wet dreams over there at CBS.
Rand Paul said Did anyone charge Bernie Sanders for inciting the shooting of that Congressman at the softball game? Did anyone charge Maxine Waters with inciting violence when she literally advised persons to confront Trump supporters? That was enough for an entirely predictable outcome to take place, leaving Alan de Fool shaking his head in dismay.

This doesn’t entirely make sense. If it is true, then the JW mentioned is an atypical outlier. The suit would certainly not have Branch support. The Witnesses overall consider alternative service laws a very good bargain and are appreciate of them. Typical of their responses is this:
https://www.jw.org/en/news/legal/by-region/taiwan/successful-alternative-service-conscientious-objectors/
As to individuals, I have never heard anyone speak against such laws. Instead, every instance I know of is people likewise appreciative of them and glad to cooperate. Like this Russian brother in the Heart and Soul broadcast: (It is one remark in a 30 minute program, probably not worth the time to search it out, but the program is worth streaming on its own merits.)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct1659
The wording is odd: “The petitioner has been known as a believer of Jehovah's Witnesses, who was recognized by the Supreme Court as a conscientious objector last year.” Why the past tense? Probably he is ex-JW KickFace himself.

Alan has already explained this, no doubt with many an insult. This was a trap that Poor Richard was led into, a trap that Alan himself would have been smart enough to avoid.
Well, you’re on to something there.

Just because that idiot thinks his wisdom is displayed by categorizing arguments and reasonings doesn’t mean that I have to. I don’t even know what arguments are “young earth” and what are not, nor to I care. It is like he is competing with The Librarian (that old hen), anal about her Dewey Decimal System. Me, I just try to deal with what makes sense.

‪“Can’t you give us someone like our imposing TV anchor persons,” the people say, “who will teach us like our scribes?”‬
‪“We’ll see what we can do,” Bethel says, and then they double down with Brother Lett‬.

The guy is a piece of work. Sometimes I fear his cherished evolution is true and that he is the final product. In that event, the end of all things will come far quicker than by any of the scenarios you have floated.

Not to worry. Ever since Dawkins wussed out with the British atheist busses, with placards saying “There probably is no God”—the “probably” because he was jellified of the Truth in Advertising law—I have lost interest in him.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2009/10/atheists-buses-and-hellfire-buses.html
Yes. Of course.

I also have not yet made the comparison (for the sake of kindness, but kindness is utterly wasted of this fellow) that while he looks forward to his death, you and I awake looking forward to the day, in an atmosphere of overall joy. Maybe THAT is the ultimate assessment of what one’s beliefs do for a person.
He really really REALLY should have stayed where he was. He would have a more pleasant personality if he had.

The guy is a piece of work. Sometimes I fear his cherished evolution is true and that he is the final product. In that event, the end of all things will come far quicker than by any of the scenarios you have floated.

You are one strange bird to think that the purpose of life is to win or lose on a here today—gone tomorrow internet thread perhaps read by 20 people.

I lost nothing. I asked my mathematician friend, “What are the chances of life originating spontaneously?”
”Greater than that of all the atoms in the known universe,” he said.
I then followed up: “What are chances that Alan will leave his infantile personality behind and respond to disagreement like an adult?”
”Let’s take another look at that evolution question,” he said. “Maybe I was a little hasty,”

I half expect the curtain torn away to reveal you controlling their marionette strings like the old guy running the Oz wizard.