Actually, I looked up sophistry before I responded the first time. Your using the term seems to be another case of “it’s so because I say it’s so.”
But I’m not interested in arguing origins with you. My only point is that when you’re talking about the story of life on earth, evolution is what happens after life already exists. And so a theory of origins is not necessary to the theory of evolution. If you satisfied with the idea that evolution can explain what has happened since God seeded the earth with the earliest form of life, then you don’t really have an issue with the theory of evolution.
So I guess we’re both satisfied now.
No sir, you know that’s not what I said. Evolution is provably wrong, and I have been through many points as to how.
But we were talking about “where the microbes came from”. And as you clearly implied, all evolution has in that regard is a religious belief, either that “God did it”, or another equally religious belief.
So as you implied, evolution is inherantly a religion, and as such, should not be funded by the taxpayer.
“I looked up sophistry before I responded the first time”
You didn’t know the word? You should listen to Rush Limbaugh. He often uses the word as it describes liberal arguments perfectly. Arguments of sophistry are very manipulative. Equating two things that are not equatable such as evolution’s requirement for a microbe source and a “requirement” for gravity to explain where matter came from is a very good example. Textbook, even.
Emotional arguments are also usually sophistry, or arguing against a fictional enemy, a “straw man”.
Spotting the kind of sophistry employed is the key.