Very rarely in the world of evolutionists do you find people's arguments clouded by desires or wishes. This is because evolution, when you get right down to it, is a pretty boring explanation as to how we all got here -- even if it is most likely the truth. Christianity, on the other hand and most other religions (including my own) are more fantastical and therefore more aesthetically appealing of an explanation - so if anyone from either side of the argument is going to be clouding their debate, it's we religious folk.

And Russ, you have a tendency to gather all the accusations which your own faction is frequently a target of and transfer them onto your opposition. Even if evolution were just plain wrong, even if it were some grandiose scheme, as you suggest; one thing is certain. The arguments in favor of evolution in this thread are expressly NOT clouded by desire. To use atheism as an unrelated example here, nobody (with the exception of you) argues that atheists believe what they do because they find these beliefs APPEALING. Even if their beliefs are mistaken, the last thing they of all people are doing is subscribing to a belief system out of desire! Even if they're wrong, they're using logic and rational thought to come to these conclusions. Religious people, on the other hand, myself among the lot, are accused of accepting our beliefs out of desire, out of a need to belief these things. You're taking the argument that's directed on you and applying it to another (unapplicable) party.


Who said rocks can turn into men?


And you believe the websites that you've been pursuing.



Russ, with respect I have to say that you're the last person in this discussion who should be talking about how to hold a debate. None of your tactics would be accepted in a debate class. For example, your frequent use of anecdotal evidence meant to prove and reinforce your statements (i.e., “I asked God for money and he gave it to me but the reason all of the 3rd world is impoverished is clearly because they don’t believe in God enough.”) If I am debating about the existence of ghosts, for example, and I hope to reach out to a mature audience, the absolute last thing I will ever do is say something like "Well my grandmother swears she saw a ghost in her house so you can't sit there and tell me they don't exist! I have proof!" Doubtless we can see the fallacy in this type of thinking.

And let's all of us stop with this whole throwing the accusation that the other person is just copying from websites here. Naturally most information we use in a debate comes from another source, not our own. This applies to both sides.