The Pathway Machine

[Purple Rabbit]

Yes, but what I am talking about is the evidence.

Acceptance of evidence as valid material in debate presupposes reason. When the debater rejects any evidence, he rejects reason. To have a debater openly reject reason is the ultimate you can ask for in debate. So what's your problem.

When people say "there is no evidence of evolution", I want to be able to turn around to them, show them Richard Lenski's studies, various fossils, genetic similarities, etc. For them to still say there is no "evidence" for Evolution would be counter to all possible reason.

So what, let them counter reason with lack of reason. And let this become clear in debate. What more can you be after? Let opponents have the right to disagree contrary to all evidence. Faith does not suppose reason. You wanna reason faith away. You wanna be in control of the mind of the believer. Science is not dogma.