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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oh wow - I was on that forum for a while (under a different handle). Were you there in the John Bracht days? I've got a funny story about that guy.
Yup. Yet they always seem to think they 'win' the debate. Tragic....
I rate that post 'useful' for it documents the extent to which some creationists are hindered by the Dunning-Kruger effect. Worse, this one pretends to be a master logician who can point out every logical fallacy in anything anyone writes (even made up ones), yet cannot see it when he uses them himself.
Aren't they just so precious when they try to argue science?
You have failed to provide any logical arguments for why your "examples" meet the criteria of adaptation rather than the concept of evolution.
Argument via assertion. Fallacy.
Evidence for these switches and a means of flipping them, please.
Assertion fallacy, Evidence please.
Fallacy of not knowing what the heck you are talking about. I suggest learning what the "genetic code" is.
If you want some information on the mechanisms of evolution by natural selection I can help? One thing I see a clot of and I’m sure you do to is naming any fallacy they feel meets the criteria with out having done due diligence to understand the material. A scientific discourse isn’t really the place to try to prove error by logical fallacies. Even when fallacies are identified as the fault of the author that doesn’t mean the facts of the evidence are untrue. Simply that fallacies we’re used in error. This is where scientific discourse and philosophical debate sometimes diverge. In debates in College every once in a while one of us would try to trick our opponent by describing our argument using a fallacy as subtext so as to put our opponents in an untenable position. Hoping, of course, that the adjudicator didn’t notice. We don’t just call out fallacies. They’re essentially cheap shots and are only effectively used when they go unnoticed. People throw them around out here like party confetti hoping that one sticks. Logical fallacies in debates are rarely if ever described by name. Relying on naming fallacies as a counter point eliminates possible discourse that will make a more understandable and therefore more salient point to the observer. They are only one small component of a debate strategy. By calling out fallacy after fallacy in scientific discourse they’ve locked themselves into the position of being viewed, by the observer, as a victim of Dunning Krueger (as you mentioned aptly in a previous post), close minded, and incapable of making a counter argument. It’s much easier to dismiss facts off hand and focus on errors of fallacy than it is to understand the facts, the opponents position, and make cohesive counter arguments. I’m not trying to pin you down personally. I see so many people religious and atheist who rely solely on dismissing an argument off hand on the hunt for identifying and calling out logical fallacies that they do not address their opponents arguments in an influential way. In this regard the method for using logical fallacies is mis applied and effectively useless for scientific discourse. Lastly, if anyone is interested in understanding the mechanisms for natural selection and how organisms evolve over time I’d be happy to help explain to anyone who’s confused. Thanks for reading my novel hope you have an awesome day!
Did you intend to reply to Rise? I was just giving him a taste of his own medicine.
Lol oh shoot that’s funny my bad
Phew! It happens.
Yeah I forgot I had him on ignore lmaoPhew! It happens.
It's about the same for me.
I honestly don't remember. I was only there for a very short time, specifically to confront Dembski. The main thing I remember is several folks (myself included) trying to get him to look at published papers on topics he said no one had done research on, and Dembski crying that we were "elephant hurling" before running away.
Probably because to them a "win" isn't about scoring points in a debate as much as it's about them emerging from it with their faith in the Bible unscathed.
Good move...
Bracht was one of these 'ID is not about religion', 'ID is not creationism!' types. Active in the IDEA Center stuff, ID on Campus and all that. Then I came across an essay that he had written with Casey Luskin that was EXPLCITLY creationist/religious in nature, in which they admitted that ID was just a way to get creationism taken seriously, etc. He hemmed and hawed and said that Luskin put his name on the paper without his permission, etc. Hilarious...
LOL....that's hilarious. That was always one of the more entertaining aspects of the ID creationism debates. "ID is not at all religious! It's all about science!" Then oftentimes not 10 minutes later the same person would go on and on about how ID shows the wonders of God's creation or something.
I know - even the 'professionals' do that. They can't help but undermine their lies. Heck, even Meyer is reduced to writing God essays... Got to keep the cash flowing from the rubes.
I loved Dr. Barbara Forrest's testimony during the Dover trial, and all the different angles she took to expose the fraud. It was so great, I used it to write a series of essays on "Why ID is a Form of Creationism".
...you don't see to understand the distinction between a functional line of code and the alphabet that code uses.[/quote]So weird that @Rise stopped replying in this thread on July 21 when his many bluffs were called...
That you keep writing (argument by repetition) this nonsense about "new genetic code" proves that you do not understand genetics.
As I have explained to you before:
THAT is the 'genetic code.' There is nothing new to be made from it.
That you still use this middle-schoolish 'needs new genetic code blah blah blah' explains why you rely so much on bare assertion and hiding behind your logical fallacy boogeymen - you don't understand the science.
Argument by assertion fallacy. Merely asserting that this is the case doesn't prove it's true just because you assert it is.
You are required to provide specific evidence of this to prove your claim is true.
You still think adaptation is just epigenetics?
Argument by assertion and strawman fallacy. Merely asserting that this is the case doesn't prove it's true just because you assert it is.
You are required to provide specific evidence of this to prove your claim is true.
False claim, the Genetic Code is not genes.
" genetic code"...
Oh, sweet irony...
"Genetic code". Middle-school science.
Ignoring your repetitious naiveté for now, I do suggest you read a post in a thread I made that regards, in part, your claims such as this 'new code' silliness, and what you claim is not in evidence.
How significantly? How do you measure that? Please explain.
Argument by assertion and a poor analogy.
All I need is one example to prove your mere assertion incorrect. As you do not seem very competent in the area of actual (as opposed to the simplistic 'genetics via analogy' that people like you tend to employ) genetics, I have bolded the relevant parts:
Group II Introns Generate Functional Chimeric Relaxase Enzymes with Modified Specificities through Exon Shuffling at Both the RNA and DNA LevelThat was just in the first 3 or 4 returns I got with a 30-second Google search.
Abstract
...In contrast to their eukaryotic derivatives, bacterial group II introns have largely been considered as harmful selfish mobile retroelements that parasitize the genome of their host. As a challenge to this view, we recently uncovered a new intergenic trans-splicing pathway that generates an assortment of mRNA chimeras. The ability of group II introns to combine disparate mRNA fragments was proposed to increase the genetic diversity of the bacterial host by shuffling coding sequences. ...We demonstrated that some of these compound relaxase enzymes yield gain-of-function phenotypes, being significantly more efficient than their precursor wild-type enzymes at supporting bacterial conjugation. We also found that relaxase enzymes with shuffled functional domains are produced in biologically relevant settings under natural expression levels. Finally, we uncovered examples of lactococcal chimeric relaxase genes with junctions exactly at the intron insertion site. Overall, our work demonstrates that the genetic diversity generated by group II introns, at the RNA level by intergenic trans-splicing and at the DNA level by recombination, can yield new functional enzymes with shuffled exons, which can lead to gain-of-function phenotypes.
That last one is the fallacy I encounter the most.
It would be cool is creationists could follow through on just ONE thread before scampering off to make similarly nonsensical assertions in other ones.