Satan Disproves Christianity

[John V]

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.

If you claim that all the others have analogues to mine, it's certainly your job to show that. You're apparently unable to do so.

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

So you keep saying without support.

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.

You're compounding the dishonesty. What do you mean by "we've got nothing but confirmation from genetics and the fossil record"?

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

No, going from we've got nothing but confirmation in genetics and paleontology to an argument against creationism isn't amending the record, it's a red herring. You're apparently afraid to elaborate on and stick by your initial claim, yet you're not willing to retract it, either.

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

I'm waiting for you to clarify your statement, as I suspect if I go first you'll move the goalposts, as you're already attempting by softening to the ambiguous "disagree with evolution" already.

What do you think evolution is?

I think there are a number of definitions, some broader and some narrower, and the context indicates the one which is (or should be) being used. While simple change in allele frequency is one definition of evolution, discussions of evolution on atheist sites generally go well beyond that to include common descent.

Actually, dog breeding raises questions for evolution. I.e., why did wolves carry so much unused variation potential in their genomes?

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?

Sure - in fact, I'll use another page from your source.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...isms.shtml
Note that artificial selection isn't listed as a mechanism of evolution. Also note that they use the more restrictive definition of evolution, as I did above: "Evolution is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient ancestors."

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?

Actually, no, I can understand why someone would not accept ancient religious documents.

And thus, the goalposts shift back...

What goalpost shifted?