Satan Disproves Christianity

[Esquilax]

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.

It's not my job to defend other religions. My sole claim was that you aren't the only one under the belief that yours is the best supported religion, and that what you've offered in support of yours has analogues in all the others. In the end you're hitting up your faith to bridge that gap, and I'm asking what makes your faith more worthy than theirs.

You aren't in quite the different boat you think you're in, when compared to them.

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

No, I'm just being intellectually honest; I've not been exposed to an argument or claim from creationist sources that I would classify as evidence, since they all fall down at one key part of the scientific method or another, but I haven't seen everything in the universe, and therefore saying that none exists isn't terribly honest.

It's called amending the record; I'm here to defend what I actually think, not what you might misinterpret my words to mean.

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

So can you provide any evidence from genetics or the fossil record that disagree with evolution, or are you just being contrarian for fun?

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

What do you think evolution is? It's just change in gene frequencies over successive generations; the mechanism involved can be artificial just as much as it can be natural.

Don't take my word for it, take Berkeley University's!

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.

I am aware that the two are different things, and your lack of understanding as to what evolution is will not change that. But just for fun, why don't you explain why you think artificial selection is excluded as a mechanism for evolution?

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

Isn't that just attendant to the idea of a subjective view? I'm sure you think everyone should accept your kinds of evidence, given that you think you're correct. Why doesn't that work in reverse?

Who holds an opinion that they believe is incorrect?

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.

And thus, the goalposts shift back...