Fallacies of Evolution

Ah, i see. But your post here clearly demonstrates how much you know.

Seriously? THIS is your 'rebuttal'?

Where are your studies? Where are your arguments? Where is any reasoning?

As usual, you rely completely on fallacies.. deflections.. assertions.. ad hominem. You thought you had a 'gotcha!', with the 'missing link' phrase. But it turns out to be a 'gotcha!' for you. If you stuck with science, you would not have this problem, but could rely on facts, sound reasoning, & peer reviewed science to back your points.

Whatever propaganda source you rely on for this subject is not adequate. You have flawed information, fake science, & compounded fallacies. Real Science is open & transparent, without an agenda.

Try it, sometime. Try posting a scientifically based argument, with real evidence. It not only would be more topical, but it would reflect better on you, as a reasoning person. The fallacy arguments don't do that.

 

This is not an 'argument', & there is no evidence. I can point this out every now & then, but merely posting a link, with an assertion summary, does not 'evidence' anything. This is merely your BELIEF. You have NO evidence that this happened, or even CAN happen.

There is no mechanism that shows HOW 'birds evolved from dinosaurs'. There are no transitional forms to show an evolutionary sequence, except by a 'it could have happened!' imaginary drawings.

HOW did you go from reptile to bird?

Cold blood to warm
scales to feathers
solid, dense bones to light hollow ones

And much more. the genetic differences between a reptile & bird are ENORMOUS!. Glibly asserting that they just did it, somehow, is absurd. This is a wild, fantastic claim that you make. You've got to have some real evidence for this, else your assertions are easily dismissed.

But, once again, the OP is illustrated. This is #6 in the list of fallacies:
Argument by Assertion. Instead of presenting evidence, assertions are repeated over & over, as if that will make up for the impotence of the arguments.

 

missing the forrest for the trees. Never disputed the physical possibility of the big bang. And never disputed the idea that the universe "recycles "itself. Just simply asked, where did the elements come from in the first place?

 

What 'disqualifies' from atheism? A discarded belief? A change of opinion?
Are you saying that if you change your belief about the nature of the universe, you can not claim to have 'truly' believed it in the first place?

You should know, that this is merely a 'no true scotsman' fallacy. How many atheists now once claimed to be theists? So, were they 'disqualified' from being a 'real theist?' Are any atheists now who once believed in a god all fakes, too? Does a change in one's belief system automatically disqualify them from being a 'true believer'?

Still, this is a good illustration of using fallacies in arguments. The 'no true scotsman' argument doesn't come up very often, so it is fun to see it in action. It is not commonly used for origin beliefs, so i was thrilled to see you use it.. just for the novelty.

 

I did go look at your link.. but i'm afraid you may have been pwned. This almost seems like a tongue in cheek examination of birds.. with silly graphics, & cutesy, slang filled quips.





And seriously, if you think this silly site has some kind of 'evidence' for the 'dino to bird' theory/belief.. the indoctrination & abandonment of science is worse than i thought. THIS is what you base your beliefs about origins on?

THIS is 'evidence' for you of the 'dino to bird' belief?

 

Your ignorance of the scientific evidence is your problem.

Here is the seminal transitional form between dinosaurs and birds showing a creature with both features right down to the feathers.

http://www.livescience.com/24745-archaeopteryx.html



Not all dinosuars were large heavy beasts. In fact the majority were very small.

The fossil above shows feathers, claws and thin light bones.

As far as the adaption from cold to warm blood goes there is evidence to suggest that some dinosaurs were warm blooded.

http://www.livescience.com/51162-dinosaurs-warm-blooded-growth-rates.html

And then there are the experiments on the DNA of chickens.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...KEN-bizarre-reverse-evolution-experiment.html

Plenty of hard scientific evidence that you simply deny because it debunks your own confirmation bias.

 

The fallacy of your question is based upon the erroneous assumption that there had to be a "beginning".

No, there did not have to be a "beginning" for the universe and all of the elements therein to have "come from".

The onus is entirely on you to prove that there had to be a "beginning" since it is your assumption that there was one.

On the other hand the existence of these elements and the laws of physics that stipulate that matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed is enough to establish an eternal universe where matter/energy has always existed and will always exist in one form or another.

The laws of physics and the existence of matter/energy are physical evidence for the existence of an eternal universe.

What is your evidence for your assumption of a "beginning" where the matter/energy were "created" out of nothing?

 

Only theists call atheism a religion.

If you want to argue logical fallacies why don't you deal with that one instead?

What are the holy books of atheism? Where do the weekly congregations of atheists meet and what prayers and songs do they use? Who are the atheist preachers and which colleges ordain them in the atheist priesthood? What holy rituals to atheists indulge in and on what holy days?

Get back to us when you have hard irrefutable evidence that this imaginary "atheist religion" exists, m'kay?

 

So you found something to nitpick about because you cannot refute the hard science?

Typical science denier deflection is to try and discredit the source instead of dealing with the actual science instead.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mutant-chicken-grows-alli/

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150512-bird-grows-face-of-dinosaur

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6215/1254390

 

this is hand waving and stating "nuh uh". You presented no evidence of any kind to rebut the citation.

 

this is hand waving and stating "nuh uh". You presented no evidence what so ever to rebut the citation that was given.

That isn't an argument.

 

'Hard science?' Really? That was what that other link was? I completely addressed it, & even though all you have is ad hominem, & some kind of appeal to authority by posting links, i replied to your 'arguments'.

I am not going to read through every link you put up, & rebut them. I don't debate links. If you have an argument, present it, with evidence, which can be a quoted link, but posting a list of links is not debate.
And, if all you have is insulting ad hominem, or if that is how you are going to preface all your replies, don't expect a response.

 

Well, in spite of your inclusion of ad hominem, i will reply to your graphic. How is this a 'transitional form'? It is a bird, with claws. You do know that those exist, don't you?



But the rest of your 'arguments' are merely ad hominem filled hostility.. irrational religious angst presented instead of empirical evidence. I doubt we will have much more interaction.

 

Ironic that you use ad homs to deflect from actually dealing with the hard scientific facts that debunk your science denier agenda.

That you are incapable of debating the science is readily apparent.

Have a nice day.

 

Irony SQUARED!

Apparently I am not the only poster who has noticed that you cannot refute the hard scientific facts. All you do is pretend that they don't exist, nitpick or deflect with utter irrelevancies. No, that is NOT an ad hom because it is an accurate observation of your failure to actually address the science that is presented to you in this thread.

That you were completely and utterly unaware of the seminal transitional form of the Archaeopteryx and the importance it has on demonstrating the ToE is evidence that you are completely and utterly disinterested in having a substantive debate on evolution.

Have a nice day!

 

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/may/18/matter-light-photons-electrons-positrons

Particle physics. The law of conservation is looking to be challenged.

 

E=MC2!

Ever heard of that famous equation by Einstein?

It means, in layman's terms, that matter and energy are different states of the same thing.

Light is energy and what they are trying to do is to turn it into matter. That does not challenge the laws of physics but instead proves them to be correct.

Having dealt with your deflection the onus is still on you to prove your baseless assumption about the "beginning" of matter/energy.

 

Your blanket dismissal of evidence for the ToE is amusing..
Take your own advice instead of consistently resorting to,"It ain't so". It's...un-scientific.

 

correct. I misread the article. However, are you familiar with Einsteins opinion on the matter...sorry for the pun....

 

That's what evolutionists say? Please show us where they say these things.

 

I wonder what other scientific theory could account for the way that humans and other species share similar genetics. All species have DNA and of the species whose genomes have been compared many have analogous genes such that they are often characterized by percentages. Ie "genetically cats and humans are 90% similar".

The relationship between species can be understood quite effectively using the theory of evolution as a model. I'm not sure of any other model that would be more effective.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-an...hensive-tree-life-23-million-species-created/

 

LOL!

Opinion in regard to which matter?

 

theism, god, all that good stuff

 

Einstein referred to himself as an agnostic and a "religious nonbeliever". He definitely did not believe in any theist "afterlife" mumbojumbo.

Perhaps the most telling thing about Einstein was his aversion to any kind of worship. He left a note in his study that was discovered after his death by a researcher stating that he did not want any statues of himself on display. This note was given to Princeton University and they removed the one they had and put it in the basement in order to respect his wishes.

Einstein himself described how he chose agnosticism over theism.

Then there is his disavowal of any belief in a "personal saviour".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

 

My apologies, I misused the term 'theism'. Can you tell I'm distracted? 2Nd post in a row, I need to try a little harder...

Einstein said 'The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.'

To me that speaks to the folly of both organized religion and atheism, trying to definitively prove that which is incapable of being proven. You get into negative proof and applying meaning to things which in the grand scheme rely on interpretation. Sure, matter can be an endless cycle. But simply because the math works does not make it so.