Churches urged to back evolution

British Broadcasting Corporation ^ | 20 February 2006 | Paul Rincon

[RunningWolf]

donh,

It may look as dodging and twisting to you, but that is not how I approach this.

I would not waste my time like that. Perhaps this cant be seen.

You say I offer it as noticeable scientific controversy regarding the acceptance of evolutionary theory not sure I agree with the rest, I don't really read into that what you did, but okay well lets say its not unnoticeable then to the scientific controversy.

Wolf

[darbymcgill]

Your sincerity is duly noted....

[balrog666]

Changing-the-subject placemarker.

[Junior]

Paul's dead.

Koo koo ka joob.

[Oztrich Boy]

Ooooh! Do I detect a bit of arrogant Darwinistic superiority here?

No. You just didn't understand my post.

[Junior]

All we have is your assertion they said that. You could be making the whole thing up for all we know.

[b_sharp]

Thanks for the links. I haven't seen these before so I guess I have a little reading to do. In the meantime you might look at an old but short and to the point post by Wesley Elsberry.

[b_sharp]

"What known physical laws would explain abiogenesis? And who said that creationists base their philosophy for living on magic? I presume you can support that second statement with some references.

My point was that if abiogenesis is shown to be correct, it will have to have followed the known physical constraints of the so-called physical laws.

Religion on the other hand worships a supernatural entity that not only breaks those laws but supposedly created them along with life, the earth and the universe. This supernatural entity seems to be using magic to do all this creating. The only cite I could possibly have for this magical world would be the Bible.

If I'm wrong about this supernatural being and his/her/its use of magic I'm sure you can and will straighten me out.

[Ken H]

That was a head-shaker all right.

[PresbyRev]

maybe not

[PresbyRev]

You are having fun attacking your strawmen, I see. Have at it.

[metmom]

God's not.

[Junior]

God didn't write that, Paul did.

[furball4paws]

Where's the gadfly when you need him?

[PatrickHenry]

Where are you?

[RunningWolf]

God didn't write that, Paul did

No it was John as in John Lennon.

Wolf

[Oztrich Boy]

1357? That's odd

[P-Marlowe]

Were the questions too difficult for you?

[freedumb2003]

Not a single lie in your referenced posts.

Would you please point to the post where I implied that someone had lied?

Please review your own statement to which I initially responded...

Yet, I defy you to find a single Evo post that contains either a purposeful logical fallacy or flat out lie.

emphasis mine...

Did you intentionally neglect or ignore a specific part of your statement? If so, that would be a purposeful logical fallacy wouldn't it?

OK lets dispatch the easy stuff first. A logical fallacy is a form of a lie. So therefore you can prove either. Becauise I abbreviated my follow-up means you have won nothing.

As a debate judge how would you score a participant who suddenly bailed on half of their argument after a single rebuttal?

There is no bailout. More importantly, your response pointed out neither a lie nor a logical fallacy.

You met neither part of my challenge. Had you pointed out a logical fallacy you MIGHT have won a small victory on my accidental truncation. But you didn't even meet the lower burden.

Your silly shenanigans with words, although amusing, have no forensic weight, much less logical weight.

My challenge stands -- have you no champion?

[P-Marlowe]

A logical fallacy is a form of a lie.

That is a lie.