Fallacies of Evolution Redux

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

  1. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    54,257
    Likes Received:
    5,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    which isn't an argument, since you've been given the evidence. Simply stating "nuh uh" isn't an argument.

    Provide a peer reviewed paper/study showing evolution to be false.
     
    Derideo_Te, Cosmo and Skruddgemire like this.
  2. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Really?

    You're demanding from us evidence that proves our point of view yet the best we can get from you is "The lack of evidence is my scientific argument."

    You're demanding evidence from us. You're demanding that...

    ...and when we ask for your explanation as to what mechanism exists that explains the current types of animals that exist now that did not exist 10,000 years ago, 100,000 years ago, 1 million years ago, 10 MYA, 100 MYA, 500 MYA...the best you're prepared to offer is "The lack of evidence is my scientific argument."

    Really?

    Wow...just [smurf]ing wow.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  3. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,421
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  4. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,727
    Likes Received:
    26,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Denial of science, check!

    Denial of factual posts containing evidence supporting evolution, check!

    Denial of factual posts exposing the fallacies in your posts, check!

    Congratulations on your denial trifecta.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  5. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,793
    Likes Received:
    796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You
    Miss
    The
    Point
    Entirely
    And
    Intentionally.

    If
    Darwinism
    FAILS
    And
    It
    Does
    Fail
    Then
    It
    MUST BE REJECTED!

    No replacement necessary. Don't you understand something so simple?
     
  6. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,793
    Likes Received:
    796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are several. Chief is their refusal to admit that they have been DEAD WRONG
    for 150 years. DEAD WRONG.


    Hubris.

    Secondly, peer pressure. They can't stray from the herd of independent minds. They would be blackballed
    and ridiculed as "stupid" by their peers if they were to think and deny Charles Darwin.

    Third, there are hundreds of millions of research dollars flowing for *research* if they keep to their archaic narrative.
    The same is true of *climate change*. Greed is a powerful motive. The pretense that intelligent, learned people are above
    greed and dishonesty is laughably naive.
     
  7. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    14,008
    Likes Received:
    4,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know what "school" teaches those things. My best guess would be a Creationist school (?) Because they seem to be just a compendium of all the classic misconceptions that Creationists push about Evolution.
     
    Guno and Derideo_Te like this.
  8. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    If there is no replacement theory, then we are rejecting science which you said that we need to keep it scientific. If there is a phenomenon and if theory 1 is wrong, then there must still be some explanation for said phenomenon. Otherwise the only answer is "because the magical sky pixie bamfed it into existence".

    And since you said that you are not a creationist...what sodding explains it?
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  9. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,793
    Likes Received:
    796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Misconceptions" is Darwinspeak for "I'm smarter than you because I believe in the descent of all animal life from the first cell, and you DON'T!

    "Misconceptions" means this two-step process, random mutation, followed by *selection*, is SOOO complicated that you can never possibly understand it. AND it has the marvelous capacity to create all manner of complex polypeptides, biological cycles and systems, organs, and behaviors that just fabricated themselves out of .... random mutations, which by the way have a total creative capacity of only a few thousand bits of information over the entire universe.
     
  10. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    If you are so smart, so scientific and we're a bunch of drooling retardicons for believing in evolution...why can't/won't you explain it to us?
     
    Guno, Sallyally, Cosmo and 1 other person like this.
  11. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,727
    Likes Received:
    26,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    :roflol:
     
    Guno, Cosmo and Bowerbird like this.
  12. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,793
    Likes Received:
    796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, we are NOT "rejecting science." Science means truth. This search DEMANDS that we reject things which do not hold water, which cannot be sustained, as Darwinism cannot be sustained. Just grasp that one tidbit if you possibly can.

    And yet you and your friends never do keep it scientific. All of you rant and rave on the *alternative*. That's not science.

    Says who? Where is that written, that "there must be some explanation"? That we humans must understand and explain all things? Is that in any physics book? Chemistry book? How many mathematical proofs were insoluble for hundreds of years?

    Explain gravity since you pretend to know so much. Why do all masses mutually attract each other, and know respective opposing masses and distances? How? Explain to one and all in your *scientific* wisdom.

    Then explain to one and all why chemical reactions are so elegant, so reversible, so useful, so cyclical in so many and varied systems and organisms. Take your time.
     
  13. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,727
    Likes Received:
    26,815
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Obviously you don't understand how science works, do you?

    In order to prove that something has "failed" you need to demonstrate that failure and have it peer reviewed, tested and replicated. You haven't done so therefore your allegation has zero basis and Evolution still stands unchallenged.
     
    Guno, Cosmo and Bowerbird like this.
  14. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    14,008
    Likes Received:
    4,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, "Misconceptions" is "Darwinspeak" for "you don't know what you're talking about". It's usually something I can easily spot when a person tries to tell me what I believe and what I don't believe before they ask me.

    I don't think it's that complicated. If you don't understand it... I don't know what to tell you. There are many books that explain it. It is really not difficult at all. You seem to have such a low self-esteem. I'm sure you can understand it.... if you try hard enough. I believe in you!

    I mean, of course, I'm not talking about all the biochemistry behind mutations. Not my field, so I don't know how easy or hard it is to understand that. But that's not too important. All you need to do is understand what they are, and what role they play.

    You'd be amazed at what you can do with a thousand bits. Look at what we have accomplished in the computer field (my profession) with just 64. Some say that with 128, we might be able to create real artificial intelligence. I'm pretty sure if you could gather the greatest computer experts in the world, given enough time and resources they could create a complete and much more efficient Universe than the one we have now with just 512 bits. With 1000?... wow! From a purely speculative "Computer Science" perspective, I could easily envision the universe actually creating itself, with that amount of bits.

    Just speculating.... don't bite my head off....

    You still haven't responded to my post, though. Where do they teach that stuff that you listed on the OP?

    You seem to be excessively concerned about anybody "being smarter" than you, but not that much about providing any credibility to your statements.
     
    Last edited: May 26, 2017
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  15. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes! If something is wrong we must reject it. But that does not mean that we say "Well [smurf] it! We were wrong. Oh well...no point in looking for the answer since we were obviously a bunch of dumb [smurf]ing morons."

    We keep searching.

    Actually the only thing I've done lately is ask one question. If not evolution, what explains the diversity of life? If asking "Why?" isn't a part of science then I [smurf]ing don't know what the [smurf] is?

    Causality. If something happens, then something must have caused it. Lightning isn't farted out of Thor's butt. Thunder isn't Giants candlestick bowling on the mountains. Light isn't ejaculated out of God's weiner. Everything that happens has a cause. This is the driving force behind science...the search for "Why".

    I'm actually willing to look at your point of view. I'm sitting here saying "Ok...you think evolution is bollocks. Fine. What is the alternative. Convince me that the alternative theory is a better one than the one about evolution."

    But you have not provided one. No one who I've ever gotten into a discussion about this has. All they can do is one of two things.

    1. Evolution is bull[smurf] and we don'e have a clue (or a care) as to why there is something now that didn't exist back then. -or-
    2. God.

    I can't. I'm not a chemist. I'm not a biologist. All I am is someone who is asking a simple question until I'm blue in the mouth and my fingers nigh ready to fall off.

    Final time. Last chance. If evolution is totally and utterly wrong...what explains why there are creatures that exist now that did not exist in the past?

    Answer the question. Enlighten us.
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  16. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Science Conspiracy Theory (SCT).
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  17. William Rea

    William Rea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    1,432
    Likes Received:
    594
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fortunately, science trumps your personal credulity.
     
    Guno, Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  18. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,421
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meanwhile, in the real world...
     
    Guno and Derideo_Te like this.
  19. Distraff

    Distraff Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Messages:
    7,929
    Likes Received:
    2,743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have been debating evolution for 10 years and this is the first time hearing many of these so-called fallacies.

    So here are the ones I have actually heard from scientists:
    #1
    #5
    #6
    #9 (Basically the same as #1)

    Here are the ones that I have never heard from a scientist or actually informed on evolution and mostly just dumb people on the internet:
    #8

    Here are the ones that aren't actually fallacies:
    #2 (Argument from authority is actually an official type of argument not a fallacy)
    #10 (misunderstanding of prediction testing in science)

    Lastly here are the ones I have never heard anywhere and seems to have come from UsFan's imagination:
    #3
    #4
    #7
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  20. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,421
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What you have “put up” were links for two articles that support evolution;which is odd coming from someone that claims there's no evidence.
    The rest of your posts amount to "it ain't so".
    What's the real reason that you can't provide a scientific argument against it?
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
    Guno, Skruddgemire and Derideo_Te like this.
  21. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In the original thread I challenged USFAN to substantiate his OP. I now submit that same challenge to you.

    The premise of the OP is that science uses fallacies in the teaching of ToE in schools. One of those fallacies listed is "Correlation proves Causation".

    We can simplify the argument by addressing, at least for now, just one of the ten "fallacies" listed. Would you agree that the following statement is correct and accurately reflects your posted intention?

    "Correlation proves Causation" is one of the fallacies commonly taught in schools for the Theory of Evolution (ToE).​

    When you have addressed this, then we can proceed.
     
  22. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is certainly a lot of agreement with that as we can see from Google...

    www.soulwinners.com.au/8.html
    www.emmanuelbaptistchurch.org
    www.fbaptistc.org/facts3new.htm
    https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/booklets/creation-or-evolution.
    www.wolfcreekbaptist.com/index.php?option=com
    nationsforchrist.org/nations/modules/smartsection/print.php



    ...and of course this one...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/fallacies-of-evolution.490664/page-92
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  23. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,793
    Likes Received:
    796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Answer the question: WHERE is it written that we HAVE to provide explanations for everything?
    That's gross silliness.
    The subject is "fallacies of evolution." If it doesn't work, it MUST be rejected. Now give it up, Darwin.

    "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science." - Charles Darwin in his letter to Asa Gray, Professor of Biology at Harvard University
     
  24. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    14,008
    Likes Received:
    4,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. But they are made up by creationists.

    And if it does work?

    No it doesn't! It means certainty.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  25. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Well that is true. Fire burns regardless of whether or not we'd understand the fuel/heat/oxygen triangle. But then again without scientific understanding of things...we'd still be in the dark ages. We wouldn't be having this discussion as the modern computer would not exist.

    We have a need to understand things because our understanding of things inspires us to do more things.

    Darwin, I am not. And I've told you that I am more than willing to give up the current theory of evolution...if someone can come up with a theory that explains "why" better than it does.

    That's the scientific method. We see, we think of a possible explanation based on what we know, we test and/or observe and if it seems to be doing a good job at answering the question...we pass it on to others to observe and test. After a while, the theory is accepted.

    Until something comes along that proves that the theory isn't answering the questions anymore *or* answers the questions better...then it's back to the drawing board and we start again.

    I kinda hate to use the term...but science is in a way...an evolutionary process in its own right.

    Your point? If I say "ever notice that there are more red Toyota corollas on the road than any other color?" That's me making a speculation. If someone else goes and actually counts those cars and tallys up the colors and finds out that sure enough...he sees more red than any other color...does the fact that I made a speculative comment invalidate his findings?

    Darwin made some observations and called them speculations. Others followed up on those speculations and from them combined with observations and peer discussions of others who have the same. Those lead to the current theory of evolution which is evolved from his speculations.
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.

Share This Page