That's the problem here, it doesn't mater if its opinion of hard scientific fact, it will not matter to these guys. There is absolutely nothing you can say or show that will change their minda
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2
Agreed....but remember you are also being read by others who might have open minds on the issue.
Staying to topic with logic proves a point to onlookers.
Personally, I see a big mistake in projecting atheism as a supporting argument. Evolution, imo, ought to be argued with a logic devoid of religious or anti religious viewpoints to start with.
The issue with many evolution debates is the insertion of belief systems into a scientific (reality ) format , in order to support fundamentalist beliefs.
The science behind evolution is so intensely strong, comments like that of Penn only wind up being destructive. Why? It's the same fallacy as what the fundamentalists argue.....to support beliefs ( pro/anti religious ) of a concept that can not be scientifically studied....that of a supreme being that created reality.
Science and faith just don't compare well and all Penn does is provide ammo for the fundie argument that science is an atheist argument against their religion......and from that pov.....it is.
However, it's only knowledge of reality.
IMO.....stick with debating reality and you can't go wrong. Use a drop out from clown college as an authoritative source and who the hell knows where you'll end up
