Replies

Okay, I'm back. I saw pink unicorns, what did you see?

Now how should I characterize this smug remark? Arrogance? Avoiding the question? Maybe you're serious.

The Straw Man fallacy is pretty basic

If I had time I'd go back to the beginning of this thread to see how many times the straw man has been invoked. It seems like that is the canned answer to all objections to evolutionary guesswork.

Okay, *thirty* yard penalty for overweening conceit...

It's not bragging when it's true. I not only charge that amount and get it, I am extremely selective of my clientelle. Is it conceit on my part or class envy on yours?

What have you got? "Well, it says here in this book written from Nth-generation oral histories that might have gotten a bit garbled along the way..."

Now this particular display of myopia is one of the reasons evos have trouble debating. Which is it? You don't understand the position of your opponents or you don't want to understand them.

Phaedrus, for example, does not take Genesis into account. Evolution's problems are myriad; logical, philosophical, physical, metaphysical, evidential, scientific and political.

Evolution's problems are myriad; logical, philosophical, physical, metaphysical, evidential, scientific and political.

Let's pretend your statement had merit. (It doesn't). Let's then insert "The Genesis storty" for "Evolution."
Logical? Um, magic deity (Christian only, please) zaps life into existence from nothing a short while ago. 4-5 billion humans today say, "nope."
Philosophical? 4-5 billion humans today say, "nope."
Physical? I don't really know what the "physical" parameter entails, but if its in regards to what we see on earth, after 2000 years, there are lots of people waiting to see some physical evidence of anything supernaturally christian. Heck, even christians say their beliefs are faith based.
Metaphysical? you win that one, as science stays away from all things metaphysical.
Evidential? Again, the Genesis account fails rather miserably. I mean c'mon, so far evidence of creationism is a resounding null set. All you creationists do is pick on evolutionary ideas (which you dont even understand) rather than put forth any evidence of your own.
Scientific? wow, that's odd. I'm pretty sure, despite LBB's silliness, 99.9% of the scietific community is pretty secure with the voluminous facts supporting evolution. The .1% is made up of guys who knowingly lie to make money on their books and videos from the uneducated flock.
Political? Not applicable, as evolution has no politics. Period.

This is another of those ridiculous posts that creationists blithely post, smile, cross their arms, and say, "hurumph." Sorry, buddy, but it doesn't fly here.