Fallacies of Evolution

In your previous post you said:
"Modern science has reached many many conclusions only to reverse them later.
Yes, but that is the nature of science. We keep examining our conclusions and revising them as necessary."

First, "that is the nature of science" - reexamining and revising "our conclusions and revising them as necessary."

Then you INSIST that evolution is "fact." Beyond debate, much less dispute.

Tsk, tsk. Your consistency is most unscientific and unintelligent.

You repeat:

There you go again, from "revising as necessary" to "FACT."

You have just tossed out Darwin's speculative hypothesis, the one you call "FACT."

You do not pursue science except to claim that you do.

 

That is indeed how science works. They are "fact" until proven wrong or inaccurate. If we took your definition, there simply would not be any "facts", because anything should be open to revision.

 

And you learned this in your sociology studies?

"FACT" as used and abused by Darwinists, means beyond any question or reasonable doubt.
That is quite inaccurate. NO DARWINIST on EARTH is open to debate or revision. Don't pretend or claim otherwise.

 

That's the problem. Where's the border of "reasonable beyond doubt". There's nothing scientific about your definition either, because it's either heavily biased or heavily mislead.

In this case I'd say heavily biased if you're that hostile against anyone supporting evolution theory.


To be blunt, you do not get to decide when something is proven beyond reasonable doubt or not. Scientists do not take the current evolution theory as absolute, but however, put it down as the most plausible theory. If you want to decide for yourself that you have doubts and disagree with the theory, that's fine, but that doesn't do anything for the discussion until you actually come with arguments.


On a related note, I have yet to see evidence from the creationist side that isn't based on theological scriptures. Perhaps you're the one that can provide it?

 

Incorrect. Evolution, Like fellow FACT Gravity, is Tweaked all the time.
I have several times cited Stephen J Gould. (Evolution as Fact and Theory), one of the most famous Scientists of the last 40 years.
A 100% Believer in evolution, he Tweaked it with 'Punctuated Equilibrium'.
Meaning, it speeds up when environmental conditions dramatically change (ie, Ice Age, Comet hitting Earth, etc), as it gets rid of creatures who can't adapt, and supports more mutations who are more suited to those new conditions.
Of course, that is 100% logical and consistent with Evolution.

BTW, it doesn't matter if you claim/fib you have me on Ignore, I will Continue to eviscerate/embarrass the fanatic and wrong claims you foist.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is settled after 150 Years of Evolution and EVERY New science in that explosive time, Consistent with or outright Confirming it. (Radiometric Dating, DNA, etc)
There is No doubt, only working out mechanisms.
AS I SAID Many times above.
Science doesn't have "Proofs", theories get affirmed over Time.
Also AGAIN, the case for evolution is far more overwhelming than that for ANY "beyond reasonable doubt" convicted Criminal case, and spans 150 Years, Many new sciences, and Millions of pieces of Evidence all pointing the Same way.

FALSE
Yes they do.
I've showed such Many times in the last few pages alone. Where have you been?
Evolution is the Central unifying Tenet of Biology.

NAS/National Academy of Sciences
https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/2

"...The Theory of Evolution has become the Central Unifying Concept of Biology and is a critical component of many related scientific disciplines. In contrast, the claims of creation science Lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested. ​

Chem Engineer posts NO EVIDENCE, and NO REBUTTAL
He loses every exchange, and has 25 or more people who've refuted him on Ignore.
(it was 23 in July when it was visible in the older format)
What is that? Why post here?

He posts in Complete denial, so he can persist/'skip-over-post' with his goofy claims.
He's been 100% gutted by a Score of Posters.
Sorry, but if he's responding to you, it's because you've done a poor/weak job rebutting him.
`

 

Anyone arguing against evolution is claiming that they know better than almost every scientist on the planet with expertise in the subject matter. There is no debate about the fact of evolution. There is considerable debate about the mechanics of evolution specifically if evolution occurs gradually or rapidly or some combination of both. Before we discovered DNA and RNA, it was unknown how life replicated itself biologically. Now that we can look at the genomes of life on earth, the evidence is even more clear that evolution is a fact. Genes do mutate. Look at any twins, they are almost identical but there is always something a bit different is there not? The reason people argue against evolution is that it does not need a God. It takes God out of the picture but for one more piece of the puzzle, how did life start? They will find it sooner or later.

 

We can get into a discussion of why abstaining from eating cloven hoof animals or scavengers were forbidden and now accepted. It;s in the Bible. That is not the topic here. Science claims to have conclusive proof all the time and then it changes because studies with some type of bias.were performed. This is why it is important to keep a degree of common sense.
Another interesting thing anthropologists will agree on....different cultures from all over the world have felt a need to sacrifice. Why is that blood lust embedded in our nature? Is it a chance happening?? That is something worth looking into.

 

I don't you'll find out in this life. I think you'll get a clearer picture in the next.

 

The answer to your question comes from a book called The Genesis Flood.

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

It was a bogus attempt to rewrite geology and fossils as happening all at once. No scientists treat it as anything but a work of fiction but creationists believe it like they believe the bible on nothing but faith alone.

 

False equivalence!

Creationism is RELIGION!

Evolution is SCIENCE!

To conflate the two is a false equivalence.

 

There are no creation arguments that have any legitimate scientific basis whatsoever.

What creationist have done is to subvert science for their own nefarious agenda.

You would do better to study WHY creationists have found it necessary to subvert science from a sociological point of view. Their motivations explain a lot about their mindset and their refusal to deal with reality as it exists today.

 

I joined the discussion late. If you don't mind, I don't delve through nearly 100 pages. I'm completely with you on the fact that Chem Engineer has nothing to back up Creationism with, but I'm not sure ALL scientists take evolution as an absolute unfortunately. They admit there are gaps, or the possibility of parts of it being flawed. A shrinking number (fortunately) of scientists still disagree on it. I'd say, let's take it as a challenge and try to find the flaws and missing links within the theory so it eventually becomes indisputable to everyone and not be satisfied with what we have already.

 

Your post is replete with errors and misunderstandings, as all Darwinist remarks are.

1. Darwinism MUST stand on its own. Stop pretending that some "alternative theory" must be immediately substituted therefor.
That is NOT remotely scientific.
2. IF Darwinism fails, then it is wrong. Period. End of discussion.
3. And it DOES fail, miserably. That is why there are thousands of well-educated scientists, mathematicians, biochemists, biologists, and others who dissent from Darwinism, an 1859 hypothesis, completely different from "the theory of gravity" about which Darwinists always hang their archaic hat.

1. NO,it is NOT a "shrinking number." And
2. Suppose you are wrong, as Ptolemy was wrong in circa 140 AD, about the earth centered universe, a "scientific theory" which held sway for over 1400 years before it was relegated to the trash dump of former science.

Your wishful thinking is only that. If there were no basis for widespread scientific doubt, hundreds of books dissenting from archaic Darwinist tautology would not be currently available, with new books coming onstream constantly.

The Fallacy of Scientific Consensus - Applicable Today to Darwinism and Climate Change

Claudius Ptolemy (85AD - 165 AD) made the plausible but entirely erroneous scientific claim that the earth was the center of the universe. This was the "scientific consensus" for more than 1400 years. But it was TOTALLY WRONG! Nicholas Copernicus (1473 - 1543) proposed a heliocentric theory which was accepted by Galileo Galilei (1564 - 1642) but few others.

 

prove there is another life after this one.

 

This is a clever argument that fails miserably when explained fully. What this man is saying is that mankind can never truly know anything. Think about this for a second. His logic goes something like this:

1. Unknown
2. Hypothesis
3. Result provided without using evidence or fact or test.
4. Acceptance by majority based upon fallacy of authority.
5. Rejection by means of scientific method.
6. Hypothesis
7. Test
8. Result
9. New understanding

Now he is arguing that because a previous authority claimed something that was generally accepted but was eventually discarded due to modification by people using new information and the scientific method, the new information is suspect because it updated a previous orthodoxy. It is as if he claims an airplane cannot fly because Icarus fell to the earth. In truth, he is claiming that new knowledge that updates our total body of knowledge invalidates the entire body of human knowledge by association. Since we will always gain new knowledge, this implies that everything we know today is suspect, there is no possibility of knowing anything. This is exactly how the Chinese stopped inventing new things in the middle ages when a new Emperor forced them to remain ignorant. This is how the once proud tradition of Muslim intellectual achievement was stopped by a Muslim cleric in the 1100s. This is exactly how the Western World operated until the Renaissance.

 

Care to name a few of the thousands? Just a few? Just to give your post some sense of credibility.

 

Funny

And then science came along and showed the earth was not the center of the Universe.

People believed the earth was flat...
And then science came along and showed the earth was not flat.

People believed that god caused famines and illnesses...
And then science came along and showed famines and illnesses had natural causes.

People believed god created kinds...
And then science came along and showed the evolution of species.

It's called progress.

The only people who argue against evolution today are people who take a fundamentalist reading of the Bible (or other religious texts).

Pythagoras in the 6th-century BC and Parmenides in the 5th-century stated that the Earth is spherical. Thousands of years later some fundamentalist religious people still believe the earth is flat.

 

"To a mathematician, these things (remarkable, strange and baffling results that have appeared in theoretical physics over the past twenty years) cannot be coincidence, they must come from a higher reason. And that reason is the assumption that this big mathematical theory describes nature." - Mathematician Richard Thomas of the Imperial College of London - (The Devil's Delusion, by David Berlinski, page 46)

 

1 It's why I asked about Creationism on it's own.
2 IF it does yes. So, by all means, but down some evidence.
3 sources. This is what you do now: Darwinism fails. No arguments, no sources, no actual idea of how many scientists actually embrace the evolution theory.

Ptolemy being wrong has literally 0 to do with the evolution theory.

 

Yep. GodDidIt. Just like God caused famines and illnesses and floods and and and...

 

die first then get back to me.

 

Pseudo-scientists continue to try to derail this thread, by invoking the Bible and creationism.
THE SUBJECT is "fallacies of evolution."

Stick to the subject and stop trying to derail the thread, Jun, and all your pals.

 

You're not morally entitled to respond to those who you lyingly claim are on 'Ignore'.
And trying to deny that the Real Reason you are anti-evolution Isn't Genecyst is another boner.
Go ahead. Deny you believe. LOL.
That's why you've had to put (read 'Claim') 30 of the best posters on 'Ignore.'
Talk about "Derailing," you've downright disengaged.. in between one fallacious post after another.

How about an answer to my destruction of your last half dozen?
I live for ON topic debate.

 

Stick with the supernatural and junk science if that’s what you’re comfortable with and leave real science to those that understand it.

 

You made a claim, and have been challenged to support it. You can either admit you made it up, or prove your claim. Your choice.