-
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!
Evidence For And Against Evolution
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Bear Wild
Well-Known Member
Your article is interesting but changes nothing. The archeological evidence still is valid.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Except that Denmark was involved in the ravaging tsunami. And likely there are many more land-changing floods, and ground shifts, moving lots and lots of things--bones, pottery-- along, sinking or raising them.
New research shows how tsunamis hit Northwest Europe 8200 years ago, ravaging Stone Age coastal communities as far south as Denmark.
Astrophile
Active Member
As Wild Fox says, this is a very interesting and informative article. However, as the article itself makes clear, the tsunami 'were probably between 1.5 and 2 metres high.' However destructive these tsunami were in coastal areas, they could not have inundated the whole of Denmark or overturned the sequence of artifacts in inland archaeological sites.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Didn't say it inundated the entire region. And one does not know what other sequences may have happened but not discovered yet. Things still unfolding, unearthed, so to speak.
That poster is a good example of the logical fallacy "strawman":
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"
No one who is interested in having a serious debate or discussion would use that poster as the basis for starting the conversation. But it is something a troll would throw out.
Skwim
Veteran Member
And just what argument is that? All it is are pieces of evidence: But if you don't like it than present your own evidence,
which I assume also doubles as your argument against evolution. But then I understand how a person, embarrassed by its implications, might be compelled to save face by trying to denigrate it with a mindless claim of strawman. I suggest you finish your Logic 101 course before trying to apply it to the outside world. And. . .you might want to look up the definition of "argument" while you're at it.
Well, I was interested, and I did.
Your argumentum ad hominem is showing.
tee hee!.
Misuse of a logical fallacy.
Ad hominem is when you personally attack someone to avoid dealing with the issue. That is not what I did. I dealt with the issue first, then characterized the poster accurately for what it is: The work of a troll, designed to troll, because it's based on a strawman.
I won't prescribe motives to your post. However, if you are interested in real debate then I can say you must be ignorant of what is conducive to fostering real debate.
No one who is serious about having a real debate knowingly resorts to strawman fallacies - because, by definition, fallacies shut down real debate. Either intentionally or by ignorance the result is the same. Unless the fallacies are corrected and the offender changes their ways so that real debate can continue uninterrupted.
You asked for thoughts on the poster and you got them - It's a strawman.
Now you're challenging my conclusion that the poster is a strawman - fair enough.
I will prove why my conclusion was true:
See, all I need to do is show one example of someone using an argument or fact in support of a creator for the origin of life that isn't the Bible and your entire meme poster based argument shatters. Stephen Meyer doesn't use the Bible to support his conclusions, and doesn't even believe a lot of it himself (and there are people who are part of his organization who are Buddhist or other beliefs, also not believing the Bible). But he sees evidence for a creator in the evidence of life itself.
It wasn't difficult to disprove your claim. As most shoddy troll memes aren't difficult to disprove when they are false.
Your arrogance and assurance of being right hasn't held up well in light of a single video proving your original post wrong. It took no real effort to do so, because of how shoddy the reasoning and factual basis of your meme poster was. The fact that you tried to lean so hard into such a shoddy piece of argument, strutting around as though it couldn't be disproven, really makes you look a lot worse than you otherwise would have
Last edited:
Skwim
Veteran Member
Stephen Meyer!
Oh My God!! ....YOU ...ARE ...ACTUALLY... CITING... STEPHEN MEYER? ..... . .Who next, Dr. Kent Hovind?
Come to think of it, why not. One's as .
Last edited:
Stephen Meyer!
Oh My God!! ....YOU ...ARE ...ACTUALLY... CITING... STEPHEN MEYER? ..... . .Who next, Dr. Kent Hovind?
Come to think of it, why not. One's asgoodbad as the other.
.
Logical fallacy, "ad hominem" and "red herring". You're trying to distract from the fact that your claim was just conclusively refuted by attacking Stephen Meyer as the source (and I don't know why you would, there's nothing wrong with what he effectively argues in that video).
He conclusively disproves your claim that the only evidence creationists can present to prove a creator is the Bible.
You won't save face by leaning into raging fallacies to try to distract from the fact that you were not only wrong but you also arrogantly acted as though you thought you couldn't be proven wrong.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Stephen Meyer!
Oh My God!! ....YOU ...ARE ...ACTUALLY... CITING... STEPHEN MEYER?....... Who next, Dr. Kent Hovind?
Not my claim at all. (Reading comprehension, Rise. Reading comprehension.) If I claimed anything it would be that in order to show creationism true, creationists have to try to show evolution false, because relying on the Bible alone gets them nowhere. It's as if, by showing evolution false creationism is true by default. Yeah sure, and I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
In any case, FYI
"Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American scientist, college professor and author. He is an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement.
Meyer contends that those who oppose Darwinism are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views. In 2001, he signed the statement A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, coinciding with the launch of the PBS TV series Evolution, saying in part:
The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast. [look into Project Steve] This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious "creationists" is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination.
[long live "cdesign proponentsists," Stephen ]
A wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources have denied, refuted, or off-handedly dismissed these allegations. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assembly woman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin–Madison characterized such claims as being a "hoax". In their website refuting the claims in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics." In analysing an Academic Freedom bill that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that: "According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work."
In a review published by The Skeptics Society titled "Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Amateur Cambrian Follies", paleontologist Donald Prothero gave a highly negative review of Meyer's book. Prothero pointed out that the "Cambrian Explosion" concept itself has been deemed an outdated concept after recent decades of fossil discovery and he points out that 'Cambrian diversification' is a more consensual term now used in paleontology to describe the 80 million-year time frame where the fossil record shows the gradual and stepwise evolution of more and more complicated animal life. Prothero criticizes Meyer for ignoring much of the fossil record and instead focusing on a later stage to give the impression that all Cambrian life forms appeared abruptly without predecessors. In contrast, Prothero cites paleontologist B.S. Lieberman that the rates of evolution during the 'Cambrian explosion' were typical of any adaptive radiation in life's history. He quotes another prominent paleontologist Andrew Knoll that '20 million years is a long time for organisms that produce a new generation every year or two' without the need to invoke any unknown processes. Going through a list of topics in modern evolutionary biology Meyer used to bolster his idea in the book, Prothero asserts that Meyer, not a paleontologist nor a molecular biologist, does not understand these scientific disciplines, therefore he misinterprets, distorts and confuses the data, all for the purpose of promoting the 'God of the gaps' argument: 'anything that is currently not easily explained by science is automatically attributed to supernatural causes', i.e. intelligent design.
. . . paleontologist Charles Marshall wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship" published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book) is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis. The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene regulatory networks (GRNs). This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to 'provide solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society and by science in particular' ".
Source: Wikipedia
.Meyer contends that those who oppose Darwinism are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views. In 2001, he signed the statement A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, coinciding with the launch of the PBS TV series Evolution, saying in part:
The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast. [look into Project Steve] This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious "creationists" is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination.
[long live "cdesign proponentsists," Stephen ]
In a review published by The Skeptics Society titled "Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Amateur Cambrian Follies", paleontologist Donald Prothero gave a highly negative review of Meyer's book. Prothero pointed out that the "Cambrian Explosion" concept itself has been deemed an outdated concept after recent decades of fossil discovery and he points out that 'Cambrian diversification' is a more consensual term now used in paleontology to describe the 80 million-year time frame where the fossil record shows the gradual and stepwise evolution of more and more complicated animal life. Prothero criticizes Meyer for ignoring much of the fossil record and instead focusing on a later stage to give the impression that all Cambrian life forms appeared abruptly without predecessors. In contrast, Prothero cites paleontologist B.S. Lieberman that the rates of evolution during the 'Cambrian explosion' were typical of any adaptive radiation in life's history. He quotes another prominent paleontologist Andrew Knoll that '20 million years is a long time for organisms that produce a new generation every year or two' without the need to invoke any unknown processes. Going through a list of topics in modern evolutionary biology Meyer used to bolster his idea in the book, Prothero asserts that Meyer, not a paleontologist nor a molecular biologist, does not understand these scientific disciplines, therefore he misinterprets, distorts and confuses the data, all for the purpose of promoting the 'God of the gaps' argument: 'anything that is currently not easily explained by science is automatically attributed to supernatural causes', i.e. intelligent design.
. . . paleontologist Charles Marshall wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship" published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book) is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis. The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene regulatory networks (GRNs). This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to 'provide solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society and by science in particular' ".
Source: Wikipedia
Last edited:
Stephen Meyer!
Oh My God!! ....YOU ...ARE ...ACTUALLY... CITING... STEPHEN MEYER?....... Who next, Dr. Kent Hovind?
Not my claim at all. (Reading comprehension, Rise. Reading comprehension.)
In any case, FYI
"Stephen C. Meyer (born 1958) is an American scientist, college professor and author. He is an advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design. He helped found the Center for Science and Culture (CSC) of the Discovery Institute (DI), which is the main organization behind the intelligent design movement..
Meyer contends that those who oppose Darwinism are persecuted by the scientific community and prevented from publishing their views. In 2001, he signed the statement A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism, coinciding with the launch of the PBS TV series Evolution, saying in part:
A wide range of scholarly, science education and legislative sources have denied, refuted, or off-handedly dismissed these allegations. In a 2006 article published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, a group of writers that included historian of science Ronald L. Numbers (author of The Creationists), philosopher of biology Elliott Sober, Wisconsin State Assembly woman Terese Berceau and four members of the department of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin–Madison characterized such claims as being a "hoax". In their website refuting the claims in the film Expelled (which featured Meyer), the National Center for Science Education states that, "Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics." In analysing an Academic Freedom bill that was based upon a Discovery Institute model statute, the Florida Senate found that: "According to the Department of Education, there has never been a case in Florida where a public school teacher or public school student has claimed that they have been discriminated against based on their science teaching or science course work."
The numbers of scientists who question Darwinism is a minority, but it is growing fast. [look into Project Steve] This is happening in the face of fierce attempts to intimidate and suppress legitimate dissent. Young scientists are threatened with deprivation of tenure. Others have seen a consistent pattern of answering scientific arguments with ad hominem attacks. In particular, the series' attempt to stigmatize all critics--including scientists--as religious "creationists" is an excellent example of viewpoint discrimination.
[long live "cdesign proponentsists," Stephen ]
In a review published by The Skeptics Society titled "Stephen Meyer's Fumbling Bumbling Amateur Cambrian Follies", paleontologist Donald Prothero gave a highly negative review of Meyer's book. Prothero pointed out that the "Cambrian Explosion" concept itself has been deemed an outdated concept after recent decades of fossil discovery and he points out that 'Cambrian diversification' is a more consensual term now used in paleontology to describe the 80 million-year time frame where the fossil record shows the gradual and stepwise evolution of more and more complicated animal life. Prothero criticizes Meyer for ignoring much of the fossil record and instead focusing on a later stage to give the impression that all Cambrian life forms appeared abruptly without predecessors. In contrast, Prothero cites paleontologist B.S. Lieberman that the rates of evolution during the 'Cambrian explosion' were typical of any adaptive radiation in life's history. He quotes another prominent paleontologist Andrew Knoll that '20 million years is a long time for organisms that produce a new generation every year or two' without the need to invoke any unknown processes. Going through a list of topics in modern evolutionary biology Meyer used to bolster his idea in the book, Prothero asserts that Meyer, not a paleontologist nor a molecular biologist, does not understand these scientific disciplines, therefore he misinterprets, distorts and confuses the data, all for the purpose of promoting the 'God of the gaps' argument: 'anything that is currently not easily explained by science is automatically attributed to supernatural causes', i.e. intelligent design.
. . . paleontologist Charles Marshall wrote in his review "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship" published in Science that while trying to build the scientific case for intelligent design, Meyer allows his deep belief to steer his understanding and interpretation of the scientific data and fossil records collected for the Cambrian period. The result (this book) is selective knowledge (scholarship) that is plagued with misrepresentation, omission, and dismissal of the scientific consensus; exacerbated by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis. The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes which drive the explosion of new species during the Cambrian period. Marshall points out that the relatively fast appearance of new animal species in this period is not driven by new genes, but rather by evolving from existing genes through "rewiring" of the gene regulatory networks (GRNs). This basis of morphogenesis is dismissed by Meyer due to his fixation on novel genes and new protein folds as prerequisite of emergence of new species. The root of his bias is his "God of the gaps" approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to 'provide solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society and by science in particular' ".
Source: Wikipedia
Logical fallacy, "argument ad nauseam" . Merely repeating your original fallacies doesn't make them become valid arguments just because you chose to repeat them.
Your post is guilty of the following:
Logical fallacy, "ad hominem" and "red herring". You're trying to distract from the fact that your claim was just conclusively refuted by attacking Stephen Meyer as the source, but the source has no relevance to how I refuted your claim.
He conclusively disproves your claim that the only evidence creationists can present to prove a creator is the Bible. It doesn't matter if you like or agree with him - The fact is he's citing evidence for a creator that doesn't involve the Bible, which disproves your original poster's claim (and by extension your claim, because you asserted the poster is not a "strawman") that creation scientists only have the Bible as evidence for their viewpoint.
There's no way for you to weasel out of the fact that he disproved your claim, which is why you can only turn to fallacy distractions as a way of saving face and pretending you have a response, without actually addressing the fact that your claim was conclusively shot down and disproven.
Logical fallacy, "red herring". You're trying to divert to another topic in hopes of ignoring the fact that your previous claim was proven conclusively wrong.
You tried to claim my characterization of the poster as a "strawman" was false. Which by extension also means you are claiming that what the poster is communicating is true.
I disproved your claim by showing that the poster's assertion is not a true, which means the poster is in fact a false strawmanning of the creation position.
But you couldn't leave it at a simple bad assertion on your part. You had to also arrogantly strut as though you were so sure the poster's assertion was true that you thought it would be impossible for me to disprove:
Your comments look really bad in light of how easy it was for me to prove your poster's assertion isn't true. Less than a minute of work, for something you held in such confidence.
Lesson hopefully learned: Don't put your confidence in shoddy memes as a substitute for having a real argument.
Last edited:
Astrophile
Active Member
What I mean is that in The Descent of Man Darwin was trying to show that human races originated as a result of a natural process that could be studied scientifically. At a time and place where most people believed that God had been directly responsible for the separate creation of every living species, it was easy to believe also that God had either created human races separately or had intervened to darken the skin of Cain and his descendants or of Ham and his descendants. So far as I understand it, it was this sort of supernaturalist thinking that Darwin was opposing.
Despite your long rant it is a fact that Steven Meyers are advocates of Intelligent Design base don a religious agenda without a falsifiable hypothesis to support ID. It is an egregious anti-science view of the causes of the nature of our physical existence and evolution of life and humanity.
There is absolutely no evidence against the science of evolution.
Unfortunately for some, they are ignorant in fallacies to know enough how to post definitions of fallacies but not to understand the the fallacies actually means.
Lesson not learned. If one has put effort and importance into posting what an "argument ad nauseam" is, one should not commit that fallacy themselves in their rebuttal.
Just
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
If a person is not truly interested in the Bible, God will sort it out. There would be nothing to substantiate the idea that God darkened Cain's skin. People usually went by tribal (family) relationships and it was a simple case of genetics. Take care, good night.
exchemist
Veteran Member
That is not an earthquake, and will not invert the order of strata. All it will do is churn some things up a bit on the surface.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
If any such thing would happen, evolution theory would be falsified.
Sounds like you are creationist number 512236549 that tries to argue against evolution by knowing exactly nothing about it.
Maybe read up before trying to continue. It will help you in making less ridiculous comments, like demanding X as evidence FOR evolution, while X would actually falsify it instead.
That is how "good" your grasp is on this theory.... observations that you think would demonstrate it, would actually falsify it instead. That's a level of "wrong" that you shouldn't be comfortable with. This is not some trivial error. This is rather mindblowingly ignorant. yet, you feel like you are qualified / knowledgeable enough to argue against it?
Please............................
Scientific theories are never considered "proven".
Next to literally knowing / understanding close to nothing about evolution, it seems your grasp of how science works is also fundamentally severely lacking.
dad
Undefeated
I would think this is a small picture that makes seeing what it trying to say hard. The theory of evolution is a belief. No evidence exists for it. The beliefs are just placed on to evidences. Period,
As usual you have it backward. The evidence came first, the interpretation came later.
Science follows evidence.
Seriously, it's a mystery to me how anyone could be unaware of at least some of the evidences of evolution.
The flat-Earthers make a stronger case.
: What's your evidence for magic poofing?