Fallacies of Evolution Redux

Discussion in 'Science' started by ChemEngineer, May 9, 2017.

  1. ESTT

    ESTT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    There is no need to apologize, but thank you all the same. I'm familiar with the aggression of many ideological factions as well. But I am also happy to see you are a reasonable person. Thank you ChemEngineer.
     
    ChemEngineer likes this.
  2. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't you think calling a theory that makes useful predictions "poisonous to the human spirit" is a little harsh? Regardless, I'm not content to just give up. My thirst for explanations in all realms of the physical world is unquenchable. I understand that not everyone can relate to the level of motivation. That's okay. But, I really don't see how my and many other scientists quest for answers could possibly be described as poisonous.
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  3. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Creationists using that quote have produced a single sentence by Darwin, taken from a secondary source, that many, if not most, have not bothered to check even that far.Any of them that did go on to read the secondary source must either have been willfully blind to what was being said or dishonest in their use of this snippet.
    Same old...
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2017
    Derideo_Te, ecco and William Rea like this.
  4. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I said earlier to another poster.
    Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better.

    Has ChemEngineer done that ?
    Has anyone?

    Biology is incomprehensible without evolution.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2017
  5. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You will not reason someone out of a position that they have reached irrationally.
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  6. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I wish that as well but, we seem to be getting Creationism instead.
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  7. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nonsense posturing. A Scientific Theory not supported by the evidence is either rejected or modified, who has disputed that?

    The rhetorical question was, if not ToE then what would you propose would explain diversity of species but, we all know that for you this question is moot since you are a Creationist and not interested in science therefore, 'Godidit' is by default your explanation.
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  8. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is a matter of time.

    They have already been forced to concede so much, including 'micro-evolution' that it is going to end up just being a few whack jobs that truly believe fully blown Creationism. Those going through the motions of their Sunday social will politely agree but, know that the evidence for deep time etc is overwhelming.

    Without the ToE, Biology is just Chemistry.
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  9. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The genius of Darwin is that without even knowing what the hereditary base unit was, he was able to use evidence and reason to figure out how diversity in species came about. The problem for politicised religion is that Darwin is pretty much science history these days and attacking him is like digging up your Great, Great, Great Granddad and punching him because your kid didn't graduate High School.
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  10. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To the creationists Darwin is the "face" of evolution. Since the creationists cannot refute the scientific evidence of evolution they are attacking Darwin and attempting to discredit him instead. In essence the OP is committing the Ad Hom fallacy that they fallaciously accuse others of using.

    However the creationist's fundamental ignorance of science means that they don't understand how the scientific process actually works. Even if something was uncovered that Darwin was "wrong" about it would not discredit him in the least because science is self correcting. Darwin's contribution to putting us on the path to finding DNA stands all by itself even if he had no idea that it existed. His scientific observations of the results of DNA mutations was ground breaking in and of itself.

    The creationists are beating a dead horse because no amount of chest beating and foot stomping on their part is going to stop the scientific process.
     
    Taxonomy26, Cosmo and William Rea like this.
  11. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Any which spring from no higher motive than to satisfy the participants' urge for self-gratification.

    It has facilitated brainwashed untold millions into believing are merely super-intelligent animals, thus providing a ready excuse for subhuman behavior.

    The question is irrelevant here.

    And there is no such line because there is no consensus among scientists as to the placement of such a line. Got that about right, haven't I?

    To hell with that, you prove yourself right.

    You think astrology doesn't make useful predictions?

    I have no reason to give a damn whether it's harsh or not. All I care about is whether it's true.

    Which of course it is.

    I suggest you reflect on the fact that answers can just as easily include rationalizations for hidden agendas as truth.
     
  12. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's correct. I do NOT think astrology makes useful predictions. What does astrology have to do with evolution?

    Let me get this straight...if I have an agenda to mitigate antibiotic overuse with the intent of saving lives and I used the predictions of evolution to rationalize that position you call that "poisonous"? Does it matter if I disclose that agenda to you?
     
  13. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry, I really don't think the "blame someone else" argument is very persuasive in general and this is no exception. Evolutionists are NOT responsible for all the subhuman behavior some people exhibit. But, even if they were does that falsify the theory in any way? No, of course not.
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2017
    Cosmo likes this.
  14. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So any that spring from a mutual desire to gratify ones partner are OK - Right?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  15. ESTT

    ESTT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What I don't understand is how their is an issue with self-gratification at least with regarding consensual sexual acts as a negative. Could you please explain what you mean?

    I have not seen another scientific theory that has shown we are something other than intelligent, flesh and blood organisms. Even so, that does not necessarily excuse subhuman behavior. Since this discussion is to prove the fallacies of evolution, I would also like to ask how my question of what other theories you would find suitable is irrelevant. If you do not believe in the accuracy of evolution, please present which scientific possibilities there are as alternatives. I understand you may see this as unnecessary, however I only ask because it seems as though you are ready to ignore a widely accepted, although possibly inaccurate, scientific theory yet have no rationalization of your own. How would the absence of any theory at all solve the issue of dehumanization?
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017
  16. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    2,266
    Likes Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your question above seems quite insincere. It is the equivalent of asking, "How would the absence of any murders save lives?"

    Darwinism has long promoted and supported the evil that is atheism. Stalin and Hitler both seized on Darwinism to promote their evil empires at a time when Darwinism was waning worldwide. If you don't consider the scores of millions murdered by Stalin and Hitler dehumanizing, if you don't consider the death and destruction visited nationwide by materialists, then I can only surmise that you must not be human yourself.
     
  17. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    50,653
    Likes Received:
    41,718
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Assumes fundamentalist theist factoids NOT in evidence! Strike 1.

    False equivalence! Strike 2.

    Ad hom violation! Strike 3.

    OP strikes out...AGAIN!

    :roflol:
     
  18. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Not true. The sources do not CONFIRM anything. That's a misnomer created by those who aren't
    aware of how science works. The sources are extremely limited and if one is careful to dig into
    the evidence they find it doesn't show evolution to be anything other than a theory that's been
    manipulated. It's completely based on extrapolation and artistic renderings to make it look real.
    The most egregious part of this theory is that it's taught in schools as a fact.

    Thank you for replying with a civil tone.
     
  19. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, most, if not all, theories contain guesswork. And many, such as evolution, are woefully
    incomplete.

    If someone knows that something, let's use evolution, is wrong but teaches it as though it's a fact, which most schools do, then it's lying. Unfortunately evolution is given leeway and freedom instead of being what it is. It's not put under the scrutiny that other theories are.
    Evolution has no evidence of species gradually transitioning into another species. It's a great idea to believe that's what happens but there isn't any evidence to show that to be what really happens.
    How do you convince people without evidence? Seriously. It's like saying, "this person
    committed a crime but there's no evidence he did.
    I demand evidence. I appears to me that you have a reason other than science for wanting to accept evolution.
     
  20. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Really? Then let's start over.

    Where is the evidence in the fossil record that shows species gradually transitioning
    into another species?
     
  21. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    No, it wouldn't be a bad thing. But the fact remains that evolution is a very weak theory.

    I'm not interested in other theories. I'm only interested in shining the light of truth on something,
    i.e. evolution, that has very little evidence to support it.

    The bad thing about evolution is that it's taught as a fact. There is no compelling evidence
    for evolution and should be taught as such.
     
  22. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Strasser likes this.
  23. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As a famous man once said: "You can't handle the truth". Your Creationist beliefs blind you to the truth.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  24. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not a scientifically proven one. It's just a political agenda, just as Darwin's theories were almost immediately turned into political agendas as well by pseudo-intellectuals. Even 'Darwin's Bulldog', Thomas Huxley, the inventor of the word 'agnostic', made it very clear that religion and science didn't conflict with each other. they are two entirely different categories of thought.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017
  25. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's definitely evidence. The wikipedia article on evidence of common descent has a decent introduction to the many different kinds of evidence. There are over 300 citations on that page...must of which are peer reviewed journals.

    I can assure you that my reasons for keeping an open mind are purely scientific. But, let's play devil's advocate here. What if my reason(s) weren't scientific? What if I had a agenda as someone else insinuated? Would that falsify evolution? No, of course not. This is an appeal to motive fallacy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2017

Share This Page