Proof that evolution is the only answer

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Yes. But I thought we were discussing modern evolutionary synthesis, not neo Darwinism. More specifically, I thought we were discussing compelling data that demands a revision of modern evolutionary synthesis. I see no such data.

Hi TzarChasm,

Just to clarify, Neo-Darwinism is the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis - just by another name.

But since you do bring up the modern evolutionary synthesis maybe I can ask you what I asked another poster in this thread who volunteered not to answer. You seem to think that the MES as presently constructed does not need revising so I'm wondering if you could breakdown the central tenets of the theory as you know them to be. I've been told by the experts here that the theory is always being revised but I haven't had any luck finding where it says that. Maybe you can help?

a reply to: Barcs

LOL, you are hilarious. Why are you so afraid to make a statement about an experiment that has already been done?

I've made my statements about the experiment you referenced and described exactly how it doesn't allow the conclusions that you are making.

Please, again, tell me what conclusion you can draw from the atomic clock experiments. It most certainly is both directly and indirectly pertinent to the discussion...

Jaden

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Yes. But I thought we were discussing modern evolutionary synthesis, not neo Darwinism. More specifically, I thought we were discussing compelling data that demands a revision of modern evolutionary synthesis. I see no such data.

Hi TzarChasm,

Just to clarify, Neo-Darwinism is the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis - just by another name.

But since you do bring up the modern evolutionary synthesis maybe I can ask you what I asked another poster in this thread who volunteered not to answer. You seem to think that the MES as presently constructed does not need revising so I'm wondering if you could breakdown the central tenets of the theory as you know them to be. I've been told by the experts here that the theory is always being revised but I haven't had any luck finding where it says that. Maybe you can help?

The theory of modern evolutionary synthesis is incomplete, not fabricated or conspiratorial. This means it is a work in progress, well founded but still being investigated in the interest of absolute accuracy.

www.evolution.berkeley.edu...

You may have already used Google in your research attempts, but I recommend a little deeper digging. Good luck in your scholarly efforts.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Its irresponsible to draw conclusions from incomplete data, unless the conclusion is that the data is incomplete.

I see what you did there, coop. That is why its called a theory, because it is the prevailing solution to the question of biology as proceeds from initial life to what we observe today. Data is incomplete all around, but modern evolutionary synthesis is more complete by far than alternative hypotheses which have never been tested, measured, or otherwise recorded in a reliable and substantive manner.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The theory of modern evolutionary synthesis is incomplete, not fabricated or conspiratorial. This means it is a work in progress, well founded but still being investigated in the interest of absolute accuracy.

www.evolution.berkeley.edu...

You may have already used Google in your research attempts, but I recommend a little deeper digging. Good luck in your scholarly efforts.

Yes I've investigated, and you are right, the modern synthesis is incomplete. What I'm wondering is if the folks who continually appeal to this outdated and incomplete framework actually know what it is they are appealing to. It is why I ask those same people if they can define the framework as they understand it to be. Yet just about every time I've inquired I've been met with evasive non-answers, if anything at all. Strange.

Misconception: “Evolutionary theory is incomplete and is currently unable to give a total explanation of life.”

Response: Evolutionary science is a work in progress. New discoveries are made and explanations adjusted when necessary. And in this respect, evolution is just like all other sciences. Research continues to add to our knowledge. While we don’t know everything about evolution (or any other scientific discipline, for that matter), we do know a great deal about the history of life, the pattern of lineage-splitting through time, and the mechanisms that have caused these changes. And more will be learned in the future. To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life’s diversity.

Your link references "evolutionary science" in the "response", not the theory. The so called "Misconception" in the title is not a misconception at all. What a bogus and misleading (flat out lie?) statement that is.

The science itself, i.e. the knowledge base, is always being added to and revised, yes, but the same can not be said for the theory itself - i.e. the MES. I think we think we know more than we actually do.

Anyway, I was hoping you'd be the one to finally break the streak of evasiveness.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Data is incomplete all around, but modern evolutionary synthesis is more complete by far than alternative hypotheses which have never been tested, measured, or otherwise recorded in a reliable and substantive manner.

"By far"? Hmm... care to answer my question then?

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Data is incomplete all around, but modern evolutionary synthesis is more complete by far than alternative hypotheses which have never been tested, measured, or otherwise recorded in a reliable and substantive manner.

"By far"? Hmm... care to answer my question then?

Im sure you noticed the link in my post. And any scientist worth their sodium chloride will freely admit that every field of study is a work in progress. tests are happening all the time, results recorded, new tools and methods being devised and improved and applied by the most astute minds money can fund. And their work will never be "done". but a pattern can be discerned and confirmed, modern evolutionary synthesis is one such pattern.

Yes I've investigated, and you are right, the modern synthesis is incomplete. What I'm wondering is if the folks who continually appeal to this outdated and incomplete framework actually know what it is they are appealing to. It is why I ask those same people if they can define the framework as they understand it to be. Yet just about every time I've inquired I've been met with evasive non-answers, if anything at all. Strange.

you would have to clarify what you mean by "framework'. I won't bother with the technical definition of evolution, its pretty easy to track down.

Your link references "evolutionary science" in the "response", not the theory. The so called "Misconception" in the title is not a misconception at all. What a bogus and misleading (flat out lie?) statement that is.

The science itself, i.e. the knowledge base, is always being added to and revised, yes, but the same can not be said for the theory itself - i.e. the MES. I think we think we know more than we actually do.

Anyway, I was hoping you'd be the one to finally break the streak of evasiveness.

its not in the theory because it probably assumes you know both what theory means and how scientific study works, such as what i mentioned above. the misconception is that incomplete means outright incorrect. the theory of evolution is not incorrect, its observations have been demonstrated and recorded. you would not be the first to try to prove otherwise, but I suppose this is a conspiracy forum...although I would recommend checking out some of the anti evolution threads already posted. speaking of patterns, theres a good one to take note of.

a reply to: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Im sure you noticed the link in my post. And any scientist worth their sodium chloride will freely admit that every field of study is a work in progress. tests are happening all the time, results recorded, new tools and methods being devised and improved and applied by the most astute minds money can fund. And their work will never be "done". but a pattern can be discerned and confirmed, modern evolutionary synthesis is one such pattern.

I agree with this view, and have zero qualms. However you seem to regard the synthesis as the end all of evolutionary theory, but I'm not clear if you understand what the synthesis states as far as how evolution works.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
you would have to clarify what you mean by "framework'. I won't bother with the technical definition of evolution, its pretty easy to track down.

By framework, I mean the collection of concepts that comprise the theory as presently defined. I'm asking you to lay those out so we can discuss them. Why won't you bother with the technical definition? This is a thread about evolution and you've cited the MES on multiple occasions. Let's discuss the technical points then, if you know them.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
its not in the theory because it probably assumes you know both what theory means and how scientific study works, such as what i mentioned above. the misconception is that incomplete means outright incorrect.

Ah, yet another semantic sleight of hand ... "Incomplete means incorrect." They should just say incorrect then, because the misconception as they've defined it there is completely 100% valid.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
the theory of evolution is not incorrect, its observations have been demonstrated and recorded. you would not be the first to try to prove otherwise, but I suppose this is a conspiracy forum...although I would recommend checking out some of the anti evolution threads already posted. speaking of patterns, theres a good one to take note of.

Let's just do away with the strawmanning, it's waste of time. I never said evolution is incorrect, nor have I said that I'm trying to disprove it. What I have said is the MES is outdated and inadequate in explaining all the evolutionary phenomena that occurs. Don't mistake my questioning of your understanding of the theory with not believing evolution, or worse, sympathizing with the creationist crowd. Of course evolution happens. So let's discuss it - or are the people defending evolution here only interested in the low hanging fruit? Speaking of patterns indeed...

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I agree with this view, and have zero qualms. However you seem to regard the synthesis as the end all of evolutionary theory, but I'm not clear if you understand what the synthesis states as far as how evolution works.

do you have a good reason to suggest I do not?

By framework, I mean the collection of concepts that comprise the theory as presently defined. I'm asking you to lay those out so we can discuss them. Why won't you bother with the technical definition? This is a thread about evolution and you've cited the MES on multiple occasions. Let's discuss the technical points then, if you know them.

for practical purposes, let's assume that the central principles of evolution are known (further information can be found with a little legwork if you are sincerely dubious of your comprehension, Im not your biology professor and you are not mine). Im not here to debate the fundamentals of evolution with anyone who has not taken the time to study them. if you have a specific concern, by all means, share it.

Ah, yet another semantic sleight of hand ... "Incomplete means incorrect." They should just say incorrect then, because the misconception as they've defined it there is completely 100% valid.

A semantic argument then. is this the height of your contention? evolution as it currently stands is clearly doing well if we are reduced to such trivial quibbling.

Let's just do away with the strawmanning, it's waste of time. I never said evolution is incorrect, nor have I said that I'm trying to disprove it. What I have said is the MES is outdated and inadequate in explaining all the evolutionary phenomena that occurs. Don't mistake my questioning of your understanding of the theory with not believing evolution, or worse, sympathizing with the creationist crowd. Of course evolution happens. So let's discuss it - or are the people defending evolution here only interested in the low hanging fruit? Speaking of patterns indeed...

Perhaps we can discuss something specific instead of tangentially chasing the topic in circles...

a reply to: TzarChasm

Science doesn't concern itself with philosophy in the way it deals with physics.

Well pretending you can do Science without using Philosophy is kind of silly. Logic is in the realm of philosophy and the purpose of the Scientific method is to use deductive logic to back up each premise with observations via experimentation. So yes Science concerns itself with philosophy in the way it deals with Physics. You can take what you deduce from Scientific experiments and then construct philosophical arguments for the existence of a Creator.

Its irresponsible to draw conclusions from incomplete data, unless the conclusion is that the data is incomplete.

At what point in time do you think I am acting on incomplete data.

Beginning-less? Is this a measurable property? Or something you take on faith because you can't measure it?

This is simply another way of saying eternal. Asking who made God, what created God are elementary errors in the realm of ontology. God is ontologically a necessary entity or an impossible entity. So either he has always existed or he can never exists. Asking what made a being that has existed for ever is the same as asking when did the thing without a beginning begin? Its completely incoherent.

That's why its philosophical, or more accurately, hypothetical. Comparing hypotheticals to demonstrable principles of evolutionary biology, or attempting to wedge hypotheticals into an already serviceable tried and proven theory, is apples and oranges.

I specifically said I wasn't wedging things into Science but taking Science as is and drawing conclusions from my current state of knowledge.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Well pretending you can do Science without using Philosophy is kind of silly. Logic is in the realm of philosophy and the purpose of the Scientific method is to use deductive logic to back up each premise with observations via experimentation. So yes Science concerns itself with philosophy in the way it deals with Physics. You can take what you deduce from Scientific experiments and then construct philosophical arguments for the existence of a Creator.

So where are the observations and experimentation? I would be fascinated to see a study where water alchemically transmutated into wine by virtue of prayer, or a 3 week dead infant is discovered alive and in perfect health after the utterance of a name and a blessing. Reproducing such studies as often as necessary would be even better. But instead, we must make do with word games and thought exercises. Philosophy, more precisely, that in philosophy which is concerned with the intangible and immeasurable. If it cannot be measured, it cannot be debated with any reasonable expectation of progress until the means to measure it have been devised and demonstrated.

At what point in time do you think I am acting on incomplete data.

any time you are drawing a theological conclusion without the relevant and complete theological data.

This is simply another way of saying eternal. Asking who made God, what created God are elementary errors in the realm of ontology. God is ontologically a necessary entity or an impossible entity. So either he has always existed or he can never exists. Asking what made a being that has existed for ever is the same as asking when did the thing without a beginning begin? Its completely incoherent.

Using a currently immeasurable and thus unsubstantiated/unconfirmed property to solve the infinite regression is more incoherent and also lazy.

a reply to: Barcs

You just contradicted yourself, bud. Philosophical position based on science? No. It is pure philosophy that requires numerous assumptions to even make sense.

Please explain the contradiction. Just asserting there is one putting a question mark after my statement doesn't actually show anything but your opinion.

Same ol' watchmaker fallacy. We know watches are made by humans because we manufacture them, so to take something that is obviously created for a purpose and compare it with the universe is nonsensical and illogical.

I think you misunderstood the point of the analogy. I was simply trying to get him to understand that just because we know how the mechanisms of a thing work doesn't necessitate that there is no designer. I was not saying because watch's need watchmakers, therefore universes need universe-makers. Nor do I think Paley's work, which is what you seem to be referring to as the watchmaker fallacy is an argument from analogy but rather an argument from inference to the best explanation.

Source Paley's Natural Theology:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for any thing I knew to the contrary, it had lain there for ever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that, for any thing I knew, the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case, as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, viz. that, when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose, e. g. that they are so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day; that, if the different parts had been differently shaped from what they are, of a different size from what they are, or placed after any other manner, or in any other order, than that in which they are placed, either no motion at all would have been carried on in the machine, or none which would have answered the use that is now served by it. To reckon up a few of the plainest of these parts, and of their offices, all tending to one result:-- We see a cylindrical box containing a coiled elastic spring, which, by its endeavour to relax itself, turns round the box. We next observe a flexible chain (artificially wrought for the sake of flexure), communicating the action of the spring from the box to the fusee. We then find a series of wheels, the teeth of which catch in, and apply to, each other, conducting the motion from the fusee to the balance, and from the balance to the pointer; and at the same time, by the size and shape of those wheels, so regulating that motion, as to terminate in causing an index, by an equable and measured progression, to pass over a given space in a given time. We take notice that the wheels are made of brass in order to keep them from rust; the springs of steel, no other metal being so elastic; that over the face of the watch there is placed a glass, a material employed in no other part of the work, but in the room of which, if there had been any other than a transparent substance, the hour could not be seen without opening the case. This mechanism being observed (it requires indeed an examination of the instrument, and perhaps some previous knowledge of the subject, to perceive and understand it; but being once, as we have said, observed and understood), the inference, we think, is inevitable, that the watch must have had a maker: that there must have existed, at some time, and at some place or other, an artificer or artificers who formed it for the purpose which we find it actually to answer; who comprehended its construction, and designed its use.

. . . for every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works of nature; . . . of being greater and more, and that in a degree which exceeds all computation. I mean that the contrivances of nature surpass the contrivances of art, in the complexity, subtlety, and curiosity of the mechanism; and still more, if possible, do they go beyond them in number and variety; yet, in a multitude of cases, are not less evidently mechanical, not less evidently contrivances, not less evidently accommodated to their end, or suited to their office, than are the most perfect productions of human ingenuity.

I think Paley is arguing the every thing that justifies inferring design from a watch if one were to study it for the first time are also present in the universe. Therefore the best explanation from these types of thing is an inference to design.

How can one empirically determine that something was created without evidence of a creator?

Well as I just said I think teleological arguments are inference to the best explanation and not deductive. I think they show that design, according to our current state of knowledge, is the best explanation. So the whole purpose of the analogy is to bring up a discussion of what justifies inferring design. Paley seems to believe that there are cases in which the presence of function and suitability of constitution to function justifies that we infer to intelligent design. This is an epistemological claim about how one can be justified in inferring something to be designed. So empiricism isn't really involved except in the study of the mechanisms.

With the universe you need to blindly assume it.

I don't think that is the case but you are entitled to your own opinion.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument for example is a deductive argument for a first cause. Telelogical Arguments and moral arguments show that God is at the very least is a metaphysical possibility and in my opinion the best explanation due to our current state of knowledge. If God is a metaphysical possibility then God exists via the ontological argument. God onto-logically fits the requirements of the first cause of the universe deduced from the kalam cosmological argument. If there is a God, resurrection is possible, if resurrection is possible then the best explanation for the circumstances surrounding Jesus, his death, and the rise of Christianity is that Jesus was resurrected. These are positive reasons for my position. They may not be to convincing to you and that is fine, but I would challenge you to come up with positive reasons for your own position not just reject mine.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

By virtue of the kalam cosmological argument, it is necessary to equally believe and revere Odin, Zeus, Allah, Jesus, Krishna, hotep, lugh, Quetzalcoatl, and cthulu among many other historical deities once feared and loved in their time. And many of them are still feared and loved today. But you only recognize one (the newest and shiniest, interestingly) and dismiss the rest for reasons that are unclear. Perhaps this deserves clarification, given that you eschew secular evolution in favor of creationism but discriminate against the vast majority of the creationism realm without due process. I'm curious about your methods of elimination, if they exist.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I am not trying to be rude but you are almost impossible to have a conversation with. You aren't here to discuss you are here to argue.

So where are the observations and experimentation?

I mean we aren't discussing any particular argument but if you'd like an example, I'd say the Kalam Cosmological argument is a good example of Science and Philosophy playing off of each other.

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

This is a philosophical argument in valid form, meaning if the premises are true the conclusion necessarily follows. Premise 1 is undeniable without being absurd. Premise 2 may be controversial, but this is where Science would need to be discussed. If two come to the conclusion that universe is finite then premise three follows. Now the conclusion has some implications such as this cause would space-less timeless and immaterial as space time and matter were the effect. Also just so there is no misunderstanding the type of cause here is what Aristotle would call an efficient cause rather than a material cause.

Philosophy, more precisely, that in philosophy which is concerned with the intangible and immeasurable. If it cannot be measured, it cannot be debated with any reasonable expectation of progress until the means to measure it have been devised and demonstrated.

I don't know why you are talking about measurement. The statement, "f it cannot be measured, it cannot be debated with any reasonable expectation of progress until the means to measure it have been devised and demonstrated," cannot be measured therefore I shouldn't try to debate you on with expectation of progress....

The idea of a necessary entity is not a hard idea grasp. If you think of a two circles. Inside one circle is the set of all possible worlds, and included in this set is the actual world. Inside the other is the set of all impossible worlds. A necessary entity exists in every possible world in the set of all possible worlds. This being exists by necessity of it's nature, asking when it starts is simply nonsensical it doesn't start it simply is. I don't know what else to tell you. This has been acknowledged by atheistic philosophers like Michael Ruse.

any time you are drawing a theological conclusion without the relevant and complete theological data.

Want to be more specific rather than making a general statement and implying that I did this?

Using a currently immeasurable and thus unsubstantiated/unconfirmed property to solve the infinite regression is more incoherent and also lazy.

You need to go study ontology. I can't discuss it with someone who doesn't understand it. Maximal Greatness is something applied to God because of what it means to be God. We are discussing the essence of a thing. If God was a created being he would no longer fit the definition of God it would be something else.... I don't understand why that is so hard for you to grasp.

a reply to: TzarChasm

By virtue of the kalam cosmological argument, it is necessary to equally believe and revere Odin, Zeus, Allah, Jesus, Krishna, hotep, lugh, Quetzalcoatl, and cthulu among many other historical deities once feared and loved in their time.

The moment you concede this you've moved from atheism to deism....You are saying okay the argument is sound, but it only gets you to deism. I would agree with you on that front, but seeing as how I don't think you've actually changed from atheist to deist I don't feel compelled to go any further with you. I am not Christian on the basis of this one argument...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I'm not sure I agree with the 1st point there in the Kalam argument.
I would add "from what we can see it's a fair assumption that..."

And I don't like how they say "begins to exist" as that alone shows it is biased and trying to avoid the where did god come from question.

Finally, there are still countless godless causes that could be used. This is based on my definition of what god would be which would basically be "someone without a higher authority". We could be an alien school experiment and whilst the kid would have godlike qualities they still wouldn't be god.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I'm not sure I agree with the 1st point there in the Kalam argument. I would add "from what we can see it's a fair assumption that..." And I don't like how they say "begins to exist" as that alone shows it is biased and trying to avoid the where did god come from question.

Philosphers are precise with their words. They say begins to exist because that is the only way that statement is true. The statement anything that exists has a cause is an entirely different statement, but let me just give you this argument which gets the same point across in different words and tell me how you feel about it.

A “Sum-styled” Leibnizian Cosmological Argument

(1): Everything not existing by necessity (i.e. everything that could fail to exist) owes its existence to something external to itself. (For example, planets, lightning, and humanity each owes existence to something else.)
(2): Something exists (call it “the Universe”) which is the sum of all these things which do not exist by necessity.
(3): Therefore, the Universe owes its existence to something external to itself.
(4): Whatever exists externally to the Universe obviously cannot itself be contingent (i.e. cannot be part of that sum).
(5): Therefore, whatever exists externally to the Universe is not contingent; by definition it exists of necessity. Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe owes its existence to something that exists by necessity.

Finally, there are still countless godless causes that could be used. This is based on my definition of what god would be which would basically be "someone without a higher authority". We could be an alien school experiment and whilst the kid would have godlike qualities they still wouldn't be god.

Alien school kid or inter-dimensional school kid? I don't know of any model of the universe that would allow this type of scenario.

a reply to: TzarChasm

originally posted by: TzarChasm

do you have a good reason to suggest I do not?

Great so lay it out

originally posted by: TzarChasm
for practical purposes, let's assume that the central principles of evolution are known (further information can be found with a little legwork if you are sincerely dubious of your comprehension, Im not your biology professor and you are not mine). I'm not here to debate the fundamentals of evolution with anyone who has not taken the time to study them. if you have a specific concern, by all means, share it.

You're not here to debate evolution? Then what are you here for?

Forget the assumptions and just lay out the central principles as you know them to be and let's discuss. You're the one who appealed to it in your debates with other members here. So what do you know about it? I'm not asking you because I don't know the theory myself. I'm not asking you to teach me. I already know it. I've studied it deeply. The purpose of asking was to discuss what you know about it. Folks around here parrot MES MES MES all day long and I wonder how much they actually know about what it is they're saying. It's okay though, you wouldn't be the first person to about face when pressed to explain the theory. All smoke and mirrors and no substance. It's really disappointing

originally posted by: TzarChasm
A semantic argument then. is this the height of your contention? evolution as it currently stands is clearly doing well if we are reduced to such trivial quibbling.

I'm looking for a discussion about the theory. You've appealed to it numerous times, so obviously you know at least something about it. If you're comfortable in your knowledge of the theory then it should be no problem for you to discuss what you know and be able to defend it. Forgive me for making that assumption

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Perhaps we can discuss something specific instead of tangentially chasing the topic in circles...

I'm ready, let's get on with it
Now about those central principles of evolutionary theory.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Yeah, no, Im not 'laying it out'. Not playing that game with you.

I'm not asking you because I don't know the theory myself. I'm not asking you to teach me. I already know it.

Cool, then we can forego the games.

The purpose of asking was to discuss what you know about it. Folks around here parrot MES MES MES all day long and I wonder how much they actually know about what it is they're saying.

you have no reason to believe my understanding of mes is inadequate. let's discuss something specific or call it good.

I'm looking for a discussion about the theory. You've appealed to it numerous times, so obviously you know at least something about it. If you're comfortable in your knowledge of the theory then it should be no problem for you to discuss what you know and be able to defend it. Forgive me for making that assumption

I should not have to defend something you already understand and agree with. That is called playing games and Im going to pass on that, sorry not sorry. If you have something specific that concerns you, please share it, otherwise, quit baiting me. If you don't have anything specific, then I'm done with this tangent of discussion.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

By virtue of the kalam cosmological argument, it is necessary to equally believe and revere Odin, Zeus, Allah, Jesus, Krishna, hotep, lugh, Quetzalcoatl, and cthulu among many other historical deities once feared and loved in their time.

The moment you concede this you've moved from atheism to deism....You are saying okay the argument is sound, but it only gets you to deism. I would agree with you on that front, but seeing as how I don't think you've actually changed from atheist to deist I don't feel compelled to go any further with you. I am not Christian on the basis of this one argument...

I was not conceding, I was humoring you. There are other problems with the kalam argument, but I'm sure you are already familiar with its flaws. The biggest one being that with some small revisions, it refutes itself. Its also telling that we have to continually resort to thought exercises that in practical terms leave us with exactly what we had before, just a little more self righteous and 'at one with the universe'. Whereas evolution constantly and consistently gives us practical results that have fostered advances in chemistry, biology, and medicine across a variety of fields.

I don't care about your compulsions, I'm curious to see evidence that evolution is a fabricated theory or at the very least conspiratorial.