Fallacies of Evolution

The mistake you make in your argument is that you try to lump all theists into one category. On a very broad scale, there are theists who take the Bible, and especially Genesis, as allegory. There are also fundamentalist theists who take the Bible, and especially Genesis, as absolute fact.

I use the term 'Creationist' to identify those who take the Bible, and especially Genesis, as absolute fact.

Many moderate theists of all faiths and denominations accept TOE. Creationists can not accept TOE because it is diametrically opposed to Genesis and the very core of their deeply held religious beliefs.

I have stated many times that I believe, based on your writings, that you are a Creationist. You refuse to acknowledge or deny it. Perhaps your problem stems from the fact that you believe the term "Creationist" is pejorative. I'll ask in a different way. Do you take Genesis as allegory or absolute fact?

 

Well, actually there are. Hundreds (thousands?) of papers have been written on the subject. Many of them by people who believe in a god.

BI - BII transitions in B-DNA - Nucleic Acids Research - Oxford Journals
nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/3/561.abstract

Studying Z-DNA and B- to Z-DNA transitions using a cytosine ...
nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/02/19/nar.gkw114.full

Programming colloidal phase transitions with DNA strand ... - Science
science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6222/639​

I don't expect you to be able to understand and criticize any of the points in any of these papers. You are not a trained molecular geneticist.
I cannot understand and defend any of the points in any of these papers. I am not a trained molecular geneticist.

I do accept the findings of these highly trained molecular geneticists.

You do not accept the findings of these highly trained molecular geneticists.
You do accept the findings of the highly trained scientists and engineers who build airplanes.

The difference is that airplanes do not contradict your beliefs in Genesis, TOE does.

I questioned the Holy Doctrines of Religious Beliefs when I was about ten years old. I was sent to Sunday School. There I was regaled with stories about Noah building a big boat, gathering up two of all the animals on the entire earth, putting them on the big boat and keeping them alive for 40 days and 40 nights.

The plots in my comic books were more realistic than that.

 

You see the religious like nature of this theory when you have credible, learned scientists who question the faithful and are blackballed, even removed from Ted Talks. For in this field of science you are not to question what has basically become dogma. Rupert Sheldrake wrote a book about it. Most people are not even aware of the scientists like Sheldrake for they are black balled by the true believers. This is a fact and is mostly only seen in evolutionary biology. We are to the point where nothing in this theory can be questioned, reminding one of religions and the way they operate. Yet some scientists still question it, and it has been said accurately that in science progress often moves ahead at the pace of tomb stones. The politics of academia is in part to blame, as well as the human nature which drives it.

The people who believe macro evolution is a settled science do so only by their faith. They get up in arms when faith is mentioned, but other more honest scientists have called it faith. The scientists who get black balled by the true believers. And this is what happens in this field of science. To the point that it is remarkably like a religion, with its own heretics and heresy. Most people only hear one side of the story, and that side will not tolerate questioning. If you do, get ready for the kind of attacks seen in this thread.

Understand, I am not a believer in the images religions have created about some god or gods. The idea that some god that acts like a flawed human personality is as absurd to me as the idea that reality arose from pure blind chance, billions of years of SOMETHING rolling the dice, which yielded a magnificent diversity and complexity, which coincidently came with the ability to self replicate. Asking a mind to believe in this, when the hard evidence is missing, is just as absurd to me as believing in the gods created by our imagination.

For me personally, if it is true that smallest level of reality requires INFORMATION in order for a atom to exist, then it is just as possible that the creation of life with the ability already there to evolve, micro evolution, involved information. No only information but coherent information. Of course the source of such information lies in the field of philosophy, not science, for materialistic science only involves itself with what can me measured.

But bringing up information in evolutionary biology is heresy, as many scientists have found out by losing academic careers. Scientific materialism had to be transcended when it could no longer bring greater understanding of what is going on at the quantum level of reality. Yet if we had seen in physics the degree of resistance we see in evolutionary biology we would never have expanded knowledge in physics. If funding had not been available for QP and those men black balled where would we be today? The difference is of course physics is a much harder science than biology, and not as apt to be an argument against the existence of something other than the material universe. Biology as it pertains to evolution has become a closed science, not open to anything but a materialistic way of looking. They self limit, due to philosophical belief, position. There has been books written on this subject by scientists which would get them put on the list. So, if you want a career in academia you best toe the official line. That is where we are today.

 

This is you hand waiving again and making baseless assertions. You provided no empirical evidence to support your claims. You simply stated "nuh uh" which is not an argument.

 

You're getting angry because your beliefs are being challenged, that's why these threads always devolve into acrimony. You accept science on faith - just like a church goer, even after they've been proven to be wrong so many times. Some use science as a weapon against Christianity. oddly they leave Eastern religions alone, probably because they don't know anything about them. In that sense, yes it is a religion.
To you it leaves only Goddidit because maybe you lack imagination. I used to think life began at the same instant as the Big Bang, but now I think life either caused the Big Bang or used the event to spread life across the universe, and there were many forms of life, there would have to be, a life form has to eat, so there would have had to have been many life forms coming into existence at the same time. Had there been only one, it would have starved to death. I don't claim to know what A+B is but if you claim you're only solving Y without any consideration of A+B, then Y can be whatever you say it is, some magical mystical soup, or abiogenesis - the Pinocchio theory. I don't know what A+B are and because I don't know A+B, I refuse to accept that anyone can solve for Y.

 

Why don't you calm down? You claimed I said that there was a God and I merely pointed out that I never said such. But you claimed that it's been proven that God does not exist and there is no such proof. You act like a holy roller who's having their faith challenged. This was a mathematical equation not a theory. Others checked his math, as could you, but challenging your faith has your hackles up and your butt cheeks clenched so any further attempts at conversation with you might be detrimental to your health and so I'll not attempt any further. Obviously your belief system is very fragile. My belief system is very fluid. It's called having an open mind. You might try it sometime. Ever hear the saying 'those who think they know everything - can't learn anything.

 

I do not wish to retract any of that.

It may be true in this sense: A case of correlation may be confused with actual causation.

Evidently, you and I understand him differently.

Why do you not ask him, then, exactly what he really meant?

Then perhaps you know something that I do not.

Most of these objections, in my opinion, are downright absurd. (And number eight is even an example of a logical fallacy--the fallacy of a priori reasoning.)

But how do you know that this "parod[y] actually represents USAFAN's thinking?

 

And the fossil record has no record of one propagating species becoming another
propagating species.

There are no transitional species. They are all species of there own kind. Science shows
that to be true at every turn.

 

Your scientific source/s for those claims?

 

The burden of proof is on you, who made the above bolded claim, not for the skeptic of your assertion to disprove it.

I only see arguments of homology & morphology.. the 'looks like!' arguments of similarity in this examination of fossils. There is nothing empirical to force this conclusion, it is only extrapolated, as a plausible possibility. That is NOT science. That is guess work.

You have to show HOW these organisms transitioned, & some kind of smoking gun that they could & did 'evolve' from one to the other, instead of just declaring 'it could have happened!'. Fossils prove no such thing, & appear abruptly, without transitional forms that *might* indicate descendancy, if there was other scientific evidence for this phenomenon. But since there is not, the fossils prove nothing. They merely show a past record of some things that lived at the time. It does not imply descendancy.. that is assumed & asserted.

 

This is hand waiving away evidence and stating "nuh uh" as an argument, which is invalid. You have once again failed to provide a single shred of evidence to support your claims.

 

No I didn't. If you want to assert that I did, then show the post.

No I didn't. If you want to assert that I did, then show the post.

I've gone back through the thread and did not find any posts to support either of your allegations.



I have never stated, in any post in any thread, that "it's been proven that God does not exist".

 

OK.

Evidently.

 

I agree.

Well, let's see.

If there is a picture of you at age 10, that is a picture of you at age 10.
If there is a picture of you at age 15, that is a picture of you at age 15.
If there is a picture of you at age 20, that is a picture of you at age 20.

The picture of you at age 15 is representative of you transitioning from age 10 to age 20.

Likewise with fossils of three different species (A,B&C). Fossil B can show the transition from species A to species C.

Fossils of individual species A and M may be quite different. Yet fossils of individual species B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K & L show the gradual transition from species A to species M.

 

Your scientific source/s for those claims?

 

Thanks!

As I said before, the answer is explainable. We just don't have enough information about the history of the canid genome to determine which explanation is correct. It's likely a mix of existing and new traits. A greater sampling of the genome is needed to figure that out.

You disagree with the analogy, which is fine. I don't want to get bogged down arguing over imagery.

Can you explain what you're referring to when you use the term "genetic structure?" The way I understand that term, it isn't related to what I said in my previous post. And can you explain what you mean by "'fool' an organism?"

Also, do you acknowledge and accept that duplication mutations happen? Do you acknowledge and accept that mutations occur which cause new alleles that produce different proteins? This seems to be getting too high level when we need to be pinning down details first.

 

The very links that pro evolutionists use to try to show evolution takes place. Every
single species they use is a stand alone species.

 

Extrapolation garnished with artistic renderings! They have to fill in the gaps with something to make
their claim look plausible since there is nothing else.

Exactly. Unfortunately this isn't taught.

Also, species can only propagate in their own species if they want to survive. Breeding with
other species produce sterile males. The females can reproduce but only with the original
species.

 

Transitioning between ages and transitioning between species is different. The photos show
the same species. The fossils always show only one species and never a species transitioning.

Except B doesn't show a transition. It shows a species of it's own and not a mixed species.
However, science does record that when a species breeds outside of it's own species the
species that is produced can't propagate because the male is always sterile. The female can
propagate but only with the original species.

What's known as extrapolation. There are no transitional species from A to M. There are only
separate and distinct species.

Remember, similarities don't mean they came from a previous species. Similarities are only
similarities. So far there is no evidence to show otherwise.

 

Darwin said no such thing;
Did you knowingly lie about Darwin or is it out of ignorance?

 

I guess you don't understand what an analogy is.

I did say say B was a species. I did not say it was a mixed species. You are so eager to defend you position you don't even take the time to understand what someone else writes.

What you mean is there is no evidence that Creationists accept.

 

First of all, one cannot lie out of ignorance.

Secondly, here's what Charles Darwin wrote,
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is
the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies,
as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. Charles Darwin (1859),
The Origin of Species, p. 280.

What do you know? I didn't lie.

 

I know what an analogy is. You chose bad analogy. At least one that didn't help your
position.

I never said you didn't. But in the tangible record there are no transitional fossils. There is no
link from A to C. There is species A and species C.

Since you mentioned it, if B isn't a mixed species what is it? How can it be a transitional species
if it isn't mixed? It seems to me that if you're wanting there to be transitional species there must
be a mixture between one to another. Please explain.

I'm not going to speak for Creationists. I'm only going by what science has found. So far
there are no transitional species. Every species is a species of it's own. There are no
propagating mixed species.

Let's try to keep this about science and not play the Creationist game.

 

'The burden of proof is on you, who made the above bolded claim, not for the skeptic of your assertion to disprove it.'

 

And another shining example of you being unable to,provide any evidence to support your baseless assertions.


I'm shocked I tell you, SHOCKED!