(September 5, 2018 at 12:49 pm)polymath257 Wrote:(September 5, 2018 at 10:36 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: You don’t seem to understand, you replace evolution with garden gnomes, and therefore it’s delisional. You can even throw in a “from the goo to the zoo” argument to drive the point home.
No, you don't get it. The *evidence* for evolution comes from testable hypotheses and observations. The evidence for neither deities nor garden gnomes is testable. THAT is partly why they are both delusional.
Ok, so you are saying that we cannot just insert "gnomes" in, and call it delusional.
Perhaps just the things claimed of evolution, which are not testable and repeatable. Those which are arrived at through inductive logic. We can insert "garden gnomes" there, and call them delusional. This would allow for the evolution, that pretty much no one disagrees with, while still calling the rest delusional. Would this work for you?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther