Satan Disproves Christianity

[John V]

Well gee, I think it's fairly implicit in the fact that those people adhere to their particular religion that they believe it has more evidence. Are you often around followers of other religions that are bummed out that yours has so much more evidentiary support than yours?

So refute it. I'm well aware how spurious it is, as the nature of the site I drew it from should readily attest. I'm just saying, you're not alone in thinking your religion is the specialest, mostest true: everyone thinks that about their church.

You're purposely dodging. I agree that people of other religions think that theirs is best supported (among those that even think about it, anyway). I'm asking for their arguments so we can evaluate whether some are indeed better supported than others.

Alright, let me expand: no claim that I have been exposed to, from intelligent design or creationism, has held up to the rigors of science sufficient to be considered evidence against evolution. I fully admit that some might exist, but if they do, I haven't seen them, though not through lack of trying.

So when you say "we've got nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record," you really mean that you find creationism unconvincing?

I'd be interested in whatever you can find to support that case, though.

It's a completely different case, now that you've presumably seen the folly of your previous cheerleader hyperbole.

Which is a red herring, because natural selection is just one mechanism by which evolution can occur, and even if it wasn't, your claim that evolution is one animal changing into another over a single generation ("They're still dogs!") is still completely incorrect.

Artificial selection is not one of the mechanisms by which evolution can occur.

You know more about evolution? So far you haven't demonstrated that you know anything.

I've demonstrated that I know that artificial selection is not the same as natural selection, which is more than you understood until this morning.

Agreed. And so far, I've yet to see a piece of evidence for christianity that meets my criteria for actually constituting evidence.

And that's fine. The problem is when you guys insist that no one should accept certain kinds of evidence.

Oh, I know: but it still demonstrates that life can arise from non-living material, in theory.

No, it absolutely does not show that. Further problems with it are that it removed organic material from the system when produced, as the environment which produced it would have also quickly broken it down. Further still it does nothing to address the chirality problem.