The Case Against Playing in the Evolution Court.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: cooperton

...
An appeal to complexity isn't "... someone doesn't understand something, therefor it is not true.'... it is "... someone doesn't understand something, therefor it is God that did it"... the fallacy is saying "God did it", because it seems too complex to happen naturally, and not providing evidence to support your claim. (I don't believe I'm having to explain this!... hard to have discourse when you don't accurately understand the concepts you are discussing).

I think it's even harder to discuss something with someone when they are not sticking with the definition that they themselves link, objecting to someone paraphrasing it by saying they're wrong and don't understand the concept they themselves link with that general definition (phrased only slightly differently), and try to force-fit the conditioning phrase 'God did it' in there, a phrase that isn't even used in the examples given on the page they linked, let alone in the definition given there. What did it say again on the page you linked?

Description: Concluding that because you don't understand something, it must not be true, it's improbable, or the argument must be flawed. This is a specific form of the argument from ignorance.

In the end, it's just you saying/claiming someone else who disagrees with you doesn't understand what he's disagreeing with, therefore, they are supposedly wrong and their argument is flawed. So how do you wanna call that?

Still sounds like an ad hominem that uses a reverse appeal to pride that plays on our fear of seeming stupid to me, especially when it looks like the one being accused of not understanding actually does understand what they disagree with quite well. And even more so if at any time during a discussion the accuser also paints the picture of stupidity and inability to use logic on the one already accused of not understanding. Or any variation on that general notion of not being able to think straight without a reasonably justifiable reason for that assessment or at the very least, a more decent detailed argument why they have reached that conclusion regarding the other person (one that doesn't for example change the definition of a term they themselves introduced linking to another definition that doesn't even mention what they changed it into, or the key-phrase they swapped out).

Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts.
...
Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

For example, fear is an emotion that can becloud judgment. ...

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Sources: The Manipulation of Information and Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!

The effect of these techniques I highlighted there, is the intellectual superiority complex (fueled by pride) I spoke about before in this thread, which is so often on display here. And re-inforced by the repetitive (reverse) appeals to pride (that play on people's fear of seeming stupid, unintelligent, uninformed, unlearned, ignorant, delusional, or any of the terms I mentioned in another thread and comment):

‘Unbelievers are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’​—John 7:32, 45-49, The Living Bible.

They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.
...
THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS:

“When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”​—Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10.

“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”​—“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky.

“Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”​—“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin.

“The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”​—“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington.

“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”​—“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey.

“It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”​—“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson.

“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”​—“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 40

Sidenote of sidenotes...

I found the line at the bottem of the page you linked for the term "appeal to complexity" rather interesting for consideration:

References:

This is a logical fallacy frequently used on the Internet. No academic sources could be found.

Of course, anyone can just make up a term to describe what they feel is a fallacy, but at what point does it become a useful term in discussions?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
You haven't shown anything yet other than pictures of human designed machines...

Yes I did, in my last post I put a picture of the electron transport chain. Or did you confuse that for a human-made machine? I don't blame you, it is obviously designed by something.

and made some vague analogies between natural and mechanical functions.

Considering the overall chemical reactions are identical, it is an accurate, and not vague, analogy. You're appealing to complexity, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it wrong.

Once again, your disbelief about the complexity of the natural world developing naturally, does not constitute evidence.

And your belief that the complexity of the natural world did develop naturally does not constitute evidence. We have strayed away from discussing the damning evidence that ruins the validity of evolution, so now you're trying to bash the ideas of others to defend your theory. You had no defense, so you had to go on the offensive.

If you can't admit that the hydrogen fuel cell has the same chemical reaction and general mechanism as the electron transport chain of the mitochondrion, I am just going to stop responding to you, because it shows you have lost all objectivity.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Yet none of that addresses cooperton's points, you are ignoring the science he is posting....is he wrong on the comparisons, and if he is why ?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Barcs

How can you not see that they are related, oh of course, it hurts your argument

originally posted by: Barcs

Explain the common mechanisms of evolution theory and abiogenesis. LOL! Put the lies away for once, dude.

Mutations—A Basis for Evolution?

1, 2. What mechanism is said to be a basis for evolution?

THERE is another difficulty facing the theory of evolution. Just how is it supposed to have happened? What is a basic mechanism that is presumed to have enabled one type of living thing to evolve into another type? Evolutionists say that various changes inside the nucleus of the cell play their part. And foremost among these are the “accidental” changes known as mutations. It is believed that the particular parts involved in these mutational changes are the genes and chromosomes in sex cells, since mutations in them can be passed along to one’s descendants.

2 “Mutations . . . are the basis of evolution,” states The World Book Encyclopedia.⁠1 Similarly, paleontologist Steven Stanley called mutations “the raw materials” for evolution.⁠2 And geneticist Peo Koller declared that mutations “are necessary for evolutionary progress.”⁠3

3. What type of mutations would be required for evolution?

3 However, it is not just any kind of mutation that evolution requires. Robert Jastrow pointed to the need for “a slow accumulation of favorable mutations.”⁠4 And Carl Sagan added: “Mutations​—sudden changes in heredity—​breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival [whereislogic: i.e. “natural selection”, another important part of "evolution theory"], resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species.”⁠5

References:

1. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 13, p. 809.

2. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 65.

3. Chromosomes and Genes, by Peo C. Koller, 1971, p. 127.

4. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, by Robert Jastrow, 1979, p. 250.

5. Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 27.

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

...
Clay hypothesis

...Bart Kahr...and colleagues reported their experiments that tested the idea that crystals can act as a source of transferable information, using crystals... . "Mother" crystals with imperfections were cleaved and used as seeds to grow "daughter" crystals from solution. They then examined the distribution of imperfections in the new crystals ... . For gene-like behaviour to be observed, the quantity of inheritance of these imperfections should have exceeded that of the mutations in the successive generations, but it did not [whereislogic: note the conflation of the concept of "imperfections" with "mutations", you may want to keep in mind the term "variations" as well in regards to this, cause that term is used later below]. Thus Kahr concluded that the crystals "were not faithful enough to store and transfer information from one generation to the next."
...
Current models

...While differing in the details, these hypotheses are based on the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and by J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life.[104] According to them, the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order".[104]
...
Bernal coined the term biopoiesis in 1949 to refer to the origin of life.[107] In 1967, he suggested that it occurred in three "stages":

1. the origin of biological monomers
2. the origin of biological polymers
3. the evolution from molecules to cells

Bernal suggested that evolution commenced between stages 1 and 2. [whereislogic: so according to him "evolution" is already involved before the first living cell (or organism).] ...
...
The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution. Since the end of the nineteenth century, 'evolutive abiogenesis' means increasing complexity and evolution of matter from inert to living state.[111] Both Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman demonstrated that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms.
...
Following on from chemical evolution came the initiation of biological evolution, which led to the first cells.[49] [whereislogic: so both are seen as "evolution" and the term "chemical evolution theory of life" is used as well to refer to chemical evolution, the proposed causal explanation for the origin of life involving the emergence of life from nonlinving matter by chance, by accident, i.e. the hypothesis of abiogenesis; coming back to Barcs's original request: the mechanisms explained are the same, the same words and terms are used, and it follows the same pattern of appealing to chance happenings as the major causal factor, even when it's claimed that it was 'by necessity' as in predestined in the chemistry (a.k.a. "chemical predestination") as discussed earlier in this thread I think, with different words]

The supposedly '2' topics are more than 'just related', but if one can't even admit that they are related, it's unlikely one will ever admit that they are both part of the same evolutionary storyline, promoted by the same type of people, appropiately referred to as "evolutionists", as they do themselves with eachother in so-called "peer reviewed" articles of science.

A proper and honest definition for evolution that doesn't try to seperate the topic of abiogenesis because it's so embarassing for promotionary purposes of the other part of the storyline?

Definition: Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator. Some persons endeavor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were produced by means of evolution. Not a Bible teaching.

Source: Evolution: Reasoning From the Scriptures

You may continue your ridicule, including your ridicule of the honest definition above that doesn't try to exclude the topic of the origin of life for propagandistic reasons. It won't do you much good anyway. Perhaps you should complain to the editors of wikipedia instead, or someone quoting from wikipedia about the subject perhaps. Still not gonna change a thing about it.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
‘Unbelievers are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.
...
THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS:

“When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”​—Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10. [i.e. by being "unreasonable"]

“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”​—“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky. [yep, here we have one the world's foremost evolutonists talking about 'believing in evolution', he doesn't seem to be as allergic to the words "belief/faith" as some other people are when it comes to their supposed mere 'acceptance' of evolution which supposedly doesn't involve any form of belief]

“Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”​—“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin. [the implication being one is "incompetent" to judge if not accepting it as an essential truth, or those scientists already doing so are "incompetent" scientists]

“The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”​—“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington. [inverse implied again: "irresponsible" if not "recognized"]

“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”​—“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey. [inverse implied: "uninformed"]

“It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”​—“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson. [inverse: not free of old illusions and prejudices]

“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”​—“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 40

In case it wasn't clear, these statements are all both appeals to pride (adding fuel to the fire of people's intellectual superiority complexes and further developing those by tickling their ears] as well as reverse appeals to pride that play on people's fear of seeming 'uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.' (which I guess you can sum up as "stupid", as I did before, it also has to do with ridicule and the use of ad hominems and painting discrediting pictures with a broad brush, making generalizations).

However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective and propagandistic techniques displaying such arrogance as if they can just get away with anything dishonest because the majority of the people living in this system of things allows it to get by them and affect them. Propaganda...it works! But it's still not cool, OK?

a reply to: whereislogic

Sorry, the official Jehovah Witness site is not a source of science.

originally posted by: Barcs
in reply to: cooperton

...you have never proved that any system COULD NOT have arisen via incremental steps. You just repeatedly state this assumption as fact, but have NEVER ONCE PROVED IT.

"There is certainly no evidence that the first Thankgiving dinner WAS NOT haunted".

Too bad you'll never admit to the reality that you're the one implying or 'referring' to the extraordinary claim here regarding the causal explanation of systems of interdependent machinery being developed via incremental steps by chance, by accident (the major causal factor you refuse to spell out or acknowledge, perhaps because it shows how outrageous or extraordinary it is to claim that systems of interdependent machinery and technology can emerge by chance, by accident, "via incremental steps" over multiple generations of whatever one supposes is retained in this storyline that spans multiple millions of years perhaps, vagueness still rules supreme in some circles). The conclusion drawn by induction that this machinery was created, engineered, is not extraordinary. It's called common sense and inductive reasoning based on the facts at hand: the reality of the systems of interdependent machinery we are observing including how they operate. Ideally, it should not be evaded by hypotheses or (implications or 'hidden referrals' to) extraordinary claims for which no adequate test has even been proposed (demoting them to mere fanciful stories designed to sound plausible in the eyes of a biased beholder of a particular market, the anti-creation market I mentioned before targeted by youtubers like AronRa and Thunderf00t). Too bad that's usually what happens anyway, both in the sciences by scientists as well as your average commenter on the internet about this topic.

Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

In that light, where does evolution stand? * Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

*: By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.

Source: Your Cells—Living Libraries!

The extraordinary claim you neglected to spell out properly and with at least a bit more detail, is even further removed from that definition for a "scientific hypothesis" as explained before when I said "for which no adequate test has even been proposed" (or at least it's more obvious I would say, not sure if I can express it as "further removed from").

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: cooperton

originally posted by: cooperton
This is not an appeal to complexity, because as I said before, I am not claiming that anyone doesn't understand it (which is what the fallacy requires). My point is that these complex systems require an inventor to be made, because random chance cannot create these intricate systems.

... but you are claiming that we don't understand it. By saying that god did it, without showing a mechanism for how that may have happened, it is quite literally you claiming that we, as a collective, don't and can never understand it... so yes, you are claiming we don't understand it... which makes it a perfect example of the fallacy! Q.E.D.

It's quite phenomenal how you can contradict yourself in the same sentence, and not see the error in your logic.

The bolded bit above is a textbook Appeal to Complexity... because you don't know that, and have never proved that... you need to provide evidence to pull yourself out of the realm of fallacy.

You are claiming the fallacy that there is no creator?

Any evidence of your imagination where the universe orginated?

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

We don't know where/how/who/what the universe originated, or even if it did originate. Any other answer is speculation or dishonesty.

If you want religious fantasy, Mr Magical Man did it all.

Your claiming to "know" there is a creator is way more arrogant than I could ever imagine to be.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere

Your claiming to "know" there is a creator is way more arrogant than I could ever imagine to be.

Your claiming to know that the world culminated without intelligent agency is equally fallacious. Well actually, no, it's much less likely... Ordered systems are always created by intelligent creators... Have you ever heard of a car engine being created by random chance?

a reply to: cooperton

Thing is, I'm not claiming to "know", I have stated we don't know the ultimate truth of the universe multiple times... jury is still out.

May be god, may be something else.

Doesn't change there are many facts that suggest evolution (at least in the short term, of say, billions of years), unless you can offer an alternative framework that includes those facts? No?... didn't think so.

I'm willing to accept an alternative if you can show me facts... your saying "it is too complex to have happened naturally" is not a fact.

So no... no where near your arrogance.

a reply to: edmc^2

1. Rules are dictated by the opponent.
2. Winners are decided by the opponent.
3. Criteria are designed by the opponent - in favor of evolution.
4. Majority of journals and studies are from "evolution scientist" and accepted as facts (without any question).
5. Players (proponents of evolution theory) are already favored by the judges. Players (proponents of evolution theory) themselves are the judges.
6. Proponents of Creation are rejected as kooks and Luddites.
7. Proponents of evolution are widely recognized as authorities on the subject - especially by the scientific community that is widely populated by evolutionists.
8. No journals or studies done by proponents of creation are accepted as valid in major universities. In other words, you can't use these publications.
9. Majority of evolutionists are atheist. Majority of atheist are proponents of evolution.
10. Scientific academia is mostly under the supervision of proponents of evolution.

reminds me of a joke.

St. Peter and Satan were having an
argument one day about
baseball. Satan proposed a game to be played on
neutral grounds between a
select team from the heavenly host and
his own hand-picked boys. "Very
well," said the gatekeeper of Heaven.
"But you realize, I hope, that
we've got all the good players and
the best coaches." "I know, and
that's all right," Satan answered
unperturbed. "We've got all the
umpires."

to address the points you have raised, it's irresponsible and downright shady to go around selling boats that dont float. most agencies, like what you described so kindly, have too much respect for their work to stake their reputation on jokes like that. this is why there are rules. if you dont like the game, then learn to play better or find another one.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

1. Rules are dictated by the opponent.
2. Winners are decided by the opponent.
3. Criteria are designed by the opponent - in favor of evolution.
4. Majority of journals and studies are from "evolution scientist" and accepted as facts (without any question).
5. Players (proponents of evolution theory) are already favored by the judges. Players (proponents of evolution theory) themselves are the judges.
6. Proponents of Creation are rejected as kooks and Luddites.
7. Proponents of evolution are widely recognized as authorities on the subject - especially by the scientific community that is widely populated by evolutionists.
8. No journals or studies done by proponents of creation are accepted as valid in major universities. In other words, you can't use these publications.
9. Majority of evolutionists are atheist. Majority of atheist are proponents of evolution.
10. Scientific academia is mostly under the supervision of proponents of evolution.

reminds me of a joke.

St. Peter and Satan were having an
argument one day about
baseball. Satan proposed a game to be played on
neutral grounds between a
select team from the heavenly host and
his own hand-picked boys. "Very
well," said the gatekeeper of Heaven.
"But you realize, I hope, that
we've got all the good players and
the best coaches." "I know, and
that's all right," Satan answered
unperturbed. "We've got all the
umpires."

to address the points you have raised, it's irresponsible and downright shady to go around selling boats that dont float. most agencies, like what you described so kindly, have too much respect for their work to stake their reputation on jokes like that. this is why there are rules. if you dont like the game, then learn to play better or find another one.

Looks like you didn't get my point. Simply put, the game is rigged!

I like to play in the game but just pointing out the obvious. I.e - YOU create the rules, put your judges, use your own definitions, ridicule the opponent to win the game.

Hence, going in, the opponents playing in the evolution court are already at a disadvantage. But in spite of the obstacles, we still come on top. How about that.

Truth always wins.

a reply to: edmc^2

Looks like you didn't get my point. Simply put, the game is rigged!

i call hacks! cried the gamer who sucks at playing

I like to play in the game but just pointing out the obvious. I.e - YOU create the rules, put your judges, use your own definitions, ridicule the opponent to win the game.

Hence, going in, the opponents playing in the evolution court are already at a disadvantage. But in spite of the obstacles, we still come on top. How about that.

Truth always wins.

truth does often win, that is why hospitals still keep vaccines in stock, up to date biology text books are very actively in circulation, and obsolete standards that lean heavily on religious influence are now being repealed in favor of civil rights. youre welcome.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Seems to be the only correct sentence I've read... from the religious side

truth always wins... that's why religion has going down hill for the past 50 years

Also why we have technology... science

what has religion ever given us... except pain and misery

and really bad music

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

Seems to be the only correct sentence I've read... from the religious side

trust always wins... that's why religion has going down hill for the past 50 years

Also why we have technology... science

what has religion ever given us... except pain and misery

and really bad music

i actually enjoy some religious music. as far as art goes I do feel that spirituality has inspired more than a few honorable performers who have made the world a little better with their craft. but art is not engineering or medicine.

a reply to: cooperton

Ordered systems are always created by intelligent creators... Have you ever heard of a car engine being created by random chance?

Ordered systems have nothing to do with "random chance" - whatever that is. This is something you made up. If ordered systems didn't self assemble, the laws of thermodynamics would be null and void. And they are not. The fact that the laws of thermodynamics hold up under scrutiny, shows conclusively that ordered systems in nature are self assembled and self sustaining. No input from a third party is required.

Self assembly is a fundamental principle which generates structural organization on scales from atomic nuclei to solar systems and galaxies. Covalent, non-covalent, weak and strong bonds would not exist if self assembly was not the principle mechanism for molecular organization.

Your example of a car engine is ridiculous. A car engine is not a natural product. It's a construct. The natural world follows the laws of thermodynamics insofar as we understand them. There are NO example of third party intervention in any natural process known to us.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

Seems to be the only correct sentence I've read... from the religious side

trust always wins... that's why religion has going down hill for the past 50 years

Also why we have technology... science

what has religion ever given us... except pain and misery

and really bad music

i actually enjoy some religious music. as far as art goes I do feel that spirituality has inspired more than a few honorable performers who have made the world a little better with their craft. but art is not engineering or medicine.

i'll give ya that... though im not sure how anyone can stand religious music... and im not talking about the newer rock and roll/country stuff because some of that isn't half bad... im talkin organ music and hymns... but hey to each their own

Though I wasn't really talking about religious people... just organized religion in general

I greatly appreciate ancient texts from religious groups... though it seems the outcome of the people that follow them are rarely "good fruit" so to speak

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

Looks like you didn't get my point. Simply put, the game is rigged!

i call hacks! cried the gamer who sucks at playing

I like to play in the game but just pointing out the obvious. I.e - YOU create the rules, put your judges, use your own definitions, ridicule the opponent to win the game.

Hence, going in, the opponents playing in the evolution court are already at a disadvantage. But in spite of the obstacles, we still come on top. How about that.

Truth always wins.

truth does often win, that is why hospitals still keep vaccines in stock, up to date biology text books are very actively in circulation, and obsolete standards that lean heavily on religious influence are now being repealed in favor of civil rights. youre welcome.

Strawman argument again?

The issue is not science. It's never been the issue. But evolution theory is. It's not science but just a conjecture. Hence, the evolution court is rigged. Otherwise, it will lose in the game.

a reply to: edmc^2

You all keep on saying... "... evolution is wrong... evolution is conjecture... evolution of a monkey to a tree has never been seen... etc. etc..."... but you never suggest what is right, what isn't conjecture but a solid line of inquiry to follow that isn't evolution.

If you can't offer an alternative, it suggests that maybe evolution is right... and is a fact that you just don't like.