Update: God sues Darwin

R&I – FS

Reporters from Fox News have reported a collapse in the arguments that the attorneys that are representing Darwin and Satan himself have given. They point out why S.I.N.reporters are not here for this interview because they’re busy developing news reports on, “Trump is bad” and could not break away for this news update.

Breaking news: God sues Darwin

With careful analysis of the evidence presented it appears to be based on “appeal to authority”, “bandwagon fallacy” and “argument ad hominem“.

When the attorneys for Darwin/Satan were asked about the nature of their evidence they said, “no comment”. “This is proven science so we don’t have to give you evidence”.

Reporters for God indicated they had no problem with the evidence that Darwin’s side is presenting i.e. similarities of body plans and genetics as well as simple to more complex within the geological column. What they object to is what they call this magical biological process that needs to be proven first before it can be used as a reason for the similarities.

With that Darwin/Satan’s attorneys yelled back that “God uses magic as well”. When hearing that God’s attorney shook their head saying there is a difference between magic and the miraculous works of their client.

The defense attorneys claim that the majority of scientists believe this can happen so they don’t understand why they need to be pressed for evidence. Fox News reporter asked, Isn’t it true that scientists who doubt Darwinism can lose their job?” The defense attorneys quickly said, “no comment”.

Fox News continued to ask questions concerning the logic that the defense attorneys were using and asked a hypothetical question. “If I said that I could cause the sun to rise and set each day and I gave evidence of sunrise and sunset how is that different than the evidence used by your clients for evolution? Darwin’s attorneys quickly ended the news conference calling Fox News, fake news.

Don’t you think you should be able to prove that a simple organism can become something different before you use similarities and simple to more complex as evidence for that magical process?

If you can’t prove the first step doesn’t this house of cards collapse?

 

%d bloggers like this: