Abiogenesis is impossible

[Cyberman]

Possibly, though I saw the connection between the "it's said" and Min's "who says?"

[Fidel_Castronaut]

my, it looks like someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morn.
you aren't following the logic; after all, it's your logic. if God doesn't exist, the God concept originated from evolution processes (couldn't come from theist since they are also the product); therefore unequivocally, evolutionary theory started it. now for some that evolution has advanced to a new plateau while others stay with the old evolution (the religious). if the new evolutionist are correct, evolution hasn't served 90% with the truth. so what would make the enlightened 10% think that same evolutionary processes now has got it right?

Wut?

[Angrboda]

Possibly, though I saw the connection between the "it's said" and Min's "who says?"

From the standpoint of logic, a charitable reading of an opponent's reply or argument is far more defensible than an uncharitable reading. Simply from a tactical standpoint, it pays to be charitable in interpreting an opponent's reply, as being uncharitable is more likely to bite you in the ass.

[snowtracks]

No, he's asking you who says what you claimed that "it's said". Please don't misrepresent someone else's words like that.

whoever these people are, cognitive scientists

Evolutionary psychology of religion - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_religion

[Cyberman]

From the standpoint of logic, a charitable reading of an opponent's reply or argument is far more defensible than an uncharitable reading. Simply from a tactical standpoint, it pays to be charitable in interpreting an opponent's reply, as being uncharitable is more likely to bite you in the ass.

From the standpoint of keeping the thread on-topic, I gave a a straightforward reading of what I determined was actually said. If that's being uncharitable, then uncharitable is what I am. What I'm not, however, is interested in getting dragged into more forum dramatics.

[Angrboda]

From the standpoint of logic, a charitable reading of an opponent's reply or argument is far more defensible than an uncharitable reading. Simply from a tactical standpoint, it pays to be charitable in interpreting an opponent's reply, as being uncharitable is more likely to bite you in the ass.

From the standpoint of keeping the thread on-topic, I gave a a straightforward reading of what I determined was actually said. If that's being uncharitable, then uncharitable is what I am. What I'm not, however, is interested in getting dragged into more forum dramatics.

Oh, I'm not pointing a finger or anything. I understood why you drew the conclusions. I was more elaborating on my prior point. The only real offendor of this principle in memory was Drew_2013 who always wanted his points to be interpreted broadly, yet was always trying to disallow the opposing view by uncharitable and narrow readings. I'm just pointing out that it pays to be alert to ambiguity, amphiboly, and the like, because doing so can lead to stronger positions and helps avoid having to make a retraction if you misinterpret something, innocently enough.

[Cyberman]

Damn - apparently I'm so nice I can't even start a fight in text.

[Jackalope]

Damn - apparently I'm so nice I can't even start a fight in text.

Put 'em up! K-pow! Right in the kissah!

[Angrboda]

Damn - apparently I'm so nice I can't even start a fight in text.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpHzPzjUTY8

[snowtracks]

if the evolutionary theory brought forth brains that are patchwork and flawed and as a result the God/religious fallacy was introduced, that same evolutionary brain that now has evolved further to concluded 'no God/religion' can't be relied on for guidance.