• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fallacies of Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
usfan said:
Most defenders/promoters of UCD do, indeed, use these (and other) fallacies. They do not use scientific evidence, because there is none. The whole theory is built on shifting, plausible assumptions and beliefs, with NO EVIDENCE that it can or did, happen.

And of course many.. a great majority.. of believers in UCD consider it 'settled science!' Any discussion brings the dogmatic believers out in force, where their jihadist zeal and devotion to this belief finds expression
Click to expand...
Oh my, now you have demonstrated that you do not even understand the concept of evidence. There are mountains of evidence for the universal common ancestor. At least that appears to be what you are denying. I will gladly help you understand the concept of evidence. That is a good starting point if you want to learn.
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
usfan said:
Good example of ad hom. ;) ..not much of a rebuttal to my points, though.

..or were you just illustrating a fallacy to support my premise? ;)
Click to expand...

Your points have been refuted many times on this site, and in just plain good science without a religious agenda.

You're new here, but your argument is old and moldy, many have presented your Fundamentalist Christian before like @nPeace. Nothing new.
 
Last edited:
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
usfan said:
Good example of ad hom. ;) ..not much of a rebuttal to my points, though.

..or were you just illustrating a fallacy to support my premise? ;)
Click to expand...
You still have not learned. That was not an ad hom. A person could insult you up and down, that would not make their argument an ad hom. How can people take you seriously when you have no clue on how to apply logical fallacies correctly?
 
usfan

usfan

Well-Known Member
ChristineM said:
The evidence for evolution is manifest.
Click to expand...

..then lets examine it. Anyone want to give it a go? Real, conclusive EVIDENCE for this hare brained 'theory?' I'm game if you are, but I'm the skeptic, here. Assertions and plausibility won't cut it.

David T said:
Now I could say, the author has shown an obvious lack of understanding of the science, might they just as completely wrong and confused in regards to the topic god? Now some might read the author as an expert on the topic god. Based on what exactly? I see zero proof what I see is only confusion.
Click to expand...
Good ad hom.. but no rebuttal or addressing the topic.

QuestioningMind said:
Clearly you do not understand the concept of infinite monkeys or infinite time. The reality is that not only would an infinite number of monkeys typing on an infinite number of computers for an infinite number of time inevitably create the entire works of Shakespeare... they would inevitable create the entire works an INFINITE number of times.
Click to expand...
Obviously, i do understand the claim of 'time and chance!', or the probability argument FOR ucd. It seems you do, too. Is this 'scientific evidence!', to you? 'Anything is possible, given enough time, therefore, EVOLUTION!'?

Hubert Farnsworth said:
This demonstrates a very poor understanding of the theory of evolution on your part. Of course a monkey won't type the works of Shakespeare. It would take TRILLIONS of years (or more). No scientist claims that random mutations lead to the evolution of complex organs in a single step. IF that were the claim, you would be very correct to doubt evolution. However, even though mutations are essentially random, natural selection is not. Study a basic biology textbook and then get back to us.
Click to expand...
Lots of people use and know this argument, since it has come up the most, here. It does not rely on hard evidence, or facts, just the BELIEF that given enough time, anything is possible.
Thanks for confirming my point. The snide remarks casting aspersions on my understanding were exposed as flawed, since you so clearly illustrate the point.

Salvador said:
There are millions of fossils to show transitions and millions of animals to compare DNA. Chromosome 2 proves that humans share a common ancestor with Great Apes who have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while we have 23 pairs. Where did our 24th pair go? Evolutionary scientists have found evidence that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.
Click to expand...
This is not demonstrable, just believed. It is a plausible conjecture, after the ASSUMPTION of UCD is made. It is not evidence, it is conjecture.
 
usfan

usfan

Well-Known Member
Shall we look at the science?

Or does everyone prefer to obsess over me, personally? ;)

I propose a debate, here, for the list above and any others that might come up, to examine this theory that has such an influence on people's worldviews. It is my contention that this is an ideological belief, not a scientific matter. The actual science in the ToE is very minimal.. almost non-existent. So, for a scientific discussion on the ToE, we will need actual, scientific proof that the claims are possible. We will need to see real science demonstrating the mechanisms of change in the genetic structure that is claimed. Please make your rebuttals on point & evidenced with facts. You can use a link to source a quote, or a study, but merely posting a link as if it rebuts something is not an argument.. it is just another logical fallacy!

I also request that science be presented, instead of mere assertions or repeated beliefs. I already know many people believe in evolution very strongly, & will defend it to the death! What i request is evidence. Talk is cheap. Indoctrination is common. Show me the proofs. I have been in many evolution threads that have ended or closed over the years, but these fallacies & arguments have never been rebutted. I welcome a civil, scientific discussion on the subject
 
Kangaroo Feathers

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
usfan said:
Shall we look at the science?

Or does everyone prefer to obsess over me, personally? ;)

I propose a debate, here, for the list above and any others that might come up, to examine this theory that has such an influence on people's worldviews. It is my contention that this is an ideological belief, not a scientific matter. The actual science in the ToE is very minimal.. almost non-existent. So, for a scientific discussion on the ToE, we will need actual, scientific proof that the claims are possible. We will need to see real science demonstrating the mechanisms of change in the genetic structure that is claimed. Please make your rebuttals on point & evidenced with facts. You can use a link to source a quote, or a study, but merely posting a link as if it rebuts something is not an argument.. it is just another logical fallacy!

I also request that science be presented, instead of mere assertions or repeated beliefs. I already know many people believe in evolution very strongly, & will defend it to the death! What i request is evidence. Talk is cheap. Indoctrination is common. Show me the proofs. I have been in many evolution threads that have ended or closed over the years, but these fallacies & arguments have never been rebutted. I welcome a civil, scientific discussion on the subject
Click to expand...
You provide evidence that any of the claims in your OP are actually in any current curricula, then let's talk about actual science. How's that?

Because I must say, I rather have you pegged as a "throws out lots of claims, shifts goal posts when challenged" type. That isn't an ad hominem, by the way, but feel free to disprove it with action all the same.
 
Kangaroo Feathers

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
usfan said:
Show me the proofs.
Click to expand...
Science, of course, doesn't deal with "proofs", merely evidence for and against. So let's get that out of the way right at the start, so we're not having "Here is massive evidence for the thing" "But you can't show me the PROOF" PRATT discussions.

If you want to actually discuss science, great, but no one here wants to bother trying to have a good faith discussion about science with you if you don't (or won't) understand the basic precepts of the discipline. The creationist tactic of demanding to play science, then demanding science change the rules of what science is, is passe.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
usfan said:
Shall we look at the science?

Or does everyone prefer to obsess over me, personally? ;)

I propose a debate, here, for the list above and any others that might come up, to examine this theory that has such an influence on people's worldviews. It is my contention that this is an ideological belief, not a scientific matter. The actual science in the ToE is very minimal.. almost non-existent. So, for a scientific discussion on the ToE, we will need actual, scientific proof that the claims are possible. We will need to see real science demonstrating the mechanisms of change in the genetic structure that is claimed. Please make your rebuttals on point & evidenced with facts. You can use a link to source a quote, or a study, but merely posting a link as if it rebuts something is not an argument.. it is just another logical fallacy!

I also request that science be presented, instead of mere assertions or repeated beliefs. I already know many people believe in evolution very strongly, & will defend it to the death! What i request is evidence. Talk is cheap. Indoctrination is common. Show me the proofs. I have been in many evolution threads that have ended or closed over the years, but these fallacies & arguments have never been rebutted. I welcome a civil, scientific discussion on the subject
Click to expand...
If you can debate properly I am up for it.

There are several problems. First you do not understand logical fallacies. You need to quit trying to claim others are guilty of them until you understand the concept.

Second you do not know what is and what is not evidence. That means that people will present evidence to you and you will simply deny the evidence. If you understood the concept that would be lying.

Are you willing to overcome these minor deficiencies first? If you can do that and promise to be honest I will have no problem at all debating with you.

By the way. you also demonstrated that you do not understand the scientific method in this post so we need to add that to what you have to learn before you can debate. Otherwise all we can do here is to correct your endless gross errors.
 
usfan

usfan

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
There are mountains of evidence for the universal common ancestor.
Click to expand...
Start with one. Show me ONE piece of compelling evidence that shows the ability of organisms to change in their genetic structure.

All of observable science screams 'NO!!!'

The false equivalence of 'small changes add up to big ones,' has to be shown. HOW you can cumulatively add up to structural changes in the DNA, when this is impossible to do by any scientific process. Small, horizontal changes are obvious. They are useful in breeding, hybridizing, etc. But NEVER do you get structural changes in the DNA. You NEVER get new traits or added chromosomes. You NEVER jump up or down to another chromosome pair structure. That is an imagined scenario.. an assumption that cannot be verified or observed. It is merely asserted, as you do here.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Kangaroo Feathers said:
Science, of course, doesn't deal with "proofs", merely evidence for and against. So let's get that out of the way right at the start, so we're not having "Here is massive evidence for the thing" "But you can't show me the PROOF" PRATT discussions.
Click to expand...

All that he has are PRATT's. I wonder if he is willing to learn so that he can debate.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
usfan said:
Start with one. Show me ONE piece of compelling evidence that shows the ability of organisms to change in their genetic structure.

All of observable science screams 'NO!!!'

The false equivalence of 'small changes add up to big ones,' has to be shown. HOW you can cumulatively add up to structural changes in the DNA, when this is impossible to do by any scientific process. Small, horizontal changes are obvious. They are useful in breeding, hybridizing, etc. But NEVER do you get structural changes in the DNA. You NEVER get new traits or added chromosomes. You NEVER jump up or down to another chromosome pair structure. That is an imagined scenario.. an assumption that cannot be verified or observed. It is merely asserted, as you do here.
Click to expand...
Not until you learn what is and what is not evidence. And no, "observable science" does not scream no. Please, all you can do right now is to demonstrate your ignorance of the topic that you are trying to debate.

As to your claim that changes are impossible by making such a claim you just put the burden of proof upon yourself. We know that you cannot demonstrate any evidence for this claim first of course because you are wrong, and second because you do not understand the nature of evidence.
 
usfan

usfan

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
By the way. you also demonstrated that you do not understand the scientific method in this post so we need to add that to what you have to learn before you can debate. Otherwise all we can do here is to correct your endless gross errors.
Click to expand...

..your obsession with my understanding is irrelevant, and kind of creepy. How about you abandon this fallacious line of 'reasoning', and go for the science? Can you? Dare you? Or, do you just prefer to obsess over my knowledge, education, hat size, or sexual preference? ;)

Show me ONE bit of evidence for this belief you defend with such zealous devotion. Ad homming over me, personally, is a deflection. A fallacious deflection.
 
Kangaroo Feathers

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
I
usfan said:
Start with one. Show me ONE piece of compelling evidence that shows the ability of organisms to change in their genetic structure.
Click to expand...
Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia
All of observable science screams 'NO!!!'
Click to expand...
There is mountains of evidence. Refusing to look at it doesn't make it go away
The false equivalence of 'small changes add up to big ones,' has to be shown. HOW you can cumulatively add up to structural changes in the DNA, when this is impossible to do by any scientific process. Small, horizontal changes are obvious. They are useful in breeding, hybridizing, etc. But NEVER do you get structural changes in the DNA. You NEVER get new traits or added chromosomes. You NEVER jump up or down to another chromosome pair structure. That is an imagined scenario.. an assumption that cannot be verified or observed. It is merely asserted, as you do here.
Click to expand...
It absolutely can be observed, and has been many times Chromosomal Speciation in the Genomics Era: Disentangling Phylogenetic Evolution of Rock-wallabies

Observed Instances of Speciation
 
usfan

usfan

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
Please, all you can do right now is to demonstrate your ignorance of the topic that you are trying to debate.
Click to expand...
No problem. Obsess over me all you want. Ignore the topic, and stick with fallacies. That's really all you have, anyway.

Anyone else want to tackle the science, here? Or do we just get confirmation and illustration of the OP? Fallacies, only. No science.
 
Kangaroo Feathers

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
usfan said:
..your obsession with my understanding is irrelevant, and kind of creepy. How about you abandon this fallacious line of 'reasoning', and go for the science? Can you? Dare you? Or, do you just prefer to obsess over my knowledge, education, hat size, or sexual preference? ;)

Show me ONE bit of evidence for this belief you defend with such zealous devotion. Ad homming over me, personally, is a deflection. A fallacious deflection.
Click to expand...
Pointing out that you don't understand something if you do not, in fact, understand it, isn't an ad hominem. Your refusal to accept correction does little to convince me you have any interest in good faith discussion. The inane smileys don't do much, either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top