Fallacies of Evolution Redux

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

  1. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,727
    Likes Received:
    26,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The out of context quote from the Darwin letter to Asa Gray is disingenuous since it implies that Darwin is "conceding" that evolution is "speculation". That is an utterly erroneous conclusion drawn by creationists because they cannot support their position using the scientific method so instead they rely upon distortion and dishonesty to achieve their nefarious anti-science agenda.

    There was a a great deal of correspondence between Darwin and Gray for many years and it focused around the concept of what today is called "intelligent design". Darwin was at a disadvantage because he did not have the science of DNA to support his position and if he had it would have resolved his dilemma. However he did not and thus engaged in the correspondence debate with Gray to try and resolve the problem.

    This correspondence was researched by Dr Sara Joan Miles and I recommend reading her papers because she lays out the arguments, both pro and con, in a fair and logical manner for each side. It was in her summation that she explains why Darwin would have written as he did to Asa Gray.

    http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Miles.html

    The singling out of that one sentence from the mass of correspondence is like picking up a lone pebble on a beach and saying that it is "evidence" for an "intelligent designer". No, instead it is evidence of desperation on the part of creationists who cannot reconcile the fact that science negates the literal interpretation of the bible.

    Darwin was never able to accept the bizarre notion of an "intelligent designer" because logically that would mean that the "creator" had maliciously designed evil, pain and suffering into this world. Your question asking for the alternative to evolution is what pushes back and exposes that fallacy on the part of the creationists. They know that if they try and use the "intelligent designer" alternative they will then be faced with explaining away the evil, pain and suffering inherent in the "design". Hence their obfuscation and dissembling as a means to balance themselves between their faith and reality.

    For the creationists science denial is a palliative to avoid addressing the fact that biblical literalism is untenable and regressive in a modern world where knowledge is now ubiquitous. Ironically they are in the same situation that Darwin was in when he was writing those letters to Asa Gray. Theology was preaching something that could not be reconciled with the scientific reality of the world. Darwin, to his credit, went with the scientific knowledge while still respecting the right of good scientists of faith like Gray to believe as they wished. Even today there are such scientists working in the field and making evolutionary discoveries that prove Darwin was right. They just don't allow their "blind faith" to stand in the way of the scientific method.
     
  2. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pretty much sums it up. These agenda-driven posters don't have any real interest in science, they just need the 'Evolution as fact' lie for political reasons that have nothing to do with facts, which is why they talk in circles and pull nonsense out of their asses all the time. They have no interest in addressing the overwhelming lack of empirical evidence; their political cults don't like empiricism.
     
    ChemEngineer likes this.
  3. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As we can see, they simply can't deal with that as it doesn't fit into their cult's system of belief.
     
    ChemEngineer and Derideo_Te like this.
  4. 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.
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  5. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,793
    Likes Received:
    796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Strasser, my Friend, "one man with courage is a majority." - Thomas Jefferson, if memory serves me right. But if it does not, the author of that sage saying is another of our wise Founding Fathers

    It takes ZERO courage to proclaim yourself brilliant simply because you fall in line with Charles Darwin's tautology.
     
    Strasser likes this.
  6. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not claiming brilliance, I'm saying that evolution answers the questions far better than the typical answer around here of "don't know, don't particularly give a smeg either."
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  7. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So not knowing facts means we should be telling students stuff we made up, because it sounds good to somebody with unscientific social and political agendas they need to justify. Right. Great plan.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
    ChemEngineer likes this.
  8. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Hrmm...telling students stuff we made up because it sounds good to unscientific social and political agendas that they need to justify. Where have I heard that before. Ooh! I know! Religion.
     
    Cosmo, William Rea and Derideo_Te like this.
  9. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Religion isn't claiming to be an empirical science, so no, you haven't 'heard it before', and besides, it's more than hilarious that the 'evolutionists' ripped off Genesis to invent their 'theory', the one they still have no empirical evidence for; the 'warm pond' theories and the like ='Garden of Eden', first alleged 'human ancestors' = 'Adam and Eve'. If one were going to bet on whether the 'Evolutionists' or the authors of Genesis had the most intuition and feel for anything, the safe bet is on the old timers and their literary intellects. You merely need to invent imaginary narratives in order to justify some political agenda or harmful compulsive sexual fetish or other, or merely just worship mindless self-indulgence; 'science' and 'rationalism' has nothing to do with your agendas.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2017
  10. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah...I've heard it before and I've heard it from Religion.
     
    Derideo_Te and Cosmo like this.
  11. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,793
    Likes Received:
    796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    THE SUBJECT is "fallacies of evolution." Religion has NOTHING to do with the subject. So you keep trying to derail the thread by changing the subject. Sorry, doesn't work.

    You can't remain on topic to save your own life. How unscientific and anti-intellectual of you. Deplorable.
     
  12. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My comments had nothing to do with religion. Why haven't you addressed them?
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  13. Derideo_Te

    Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2015
    Messages:
    34,727
    Likes Received:
    26,816
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here is the list of reputable and credible scientific organizations that support your position.
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    End of list!

    Quote mining on your part does not count as valid refutation of the list!
     
  14. Skruddgemire

    Skruddgemire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2017
    Messages:
    715
    Likes Received:
    352
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    It's unscientific to ask why? It's anti-intellectual to ask why?

    Personally I think it's unscientific and anti-intellectual to respond to a question of "If not evolution, then what?" by saying "don't know, don't care, there doesn't have to be a reason why." as some people in this thread have answered.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  15. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Let's try this again.

    Your.
    Question.
    Is.
    Irrelevant.

    Evidence
    For
    Evolution.
    Is.
    Weak.

    Evolution.
    Explains.
    Nothing.

    It.
    Is.
    Extrapolation.
    With.
    Artistic.
    Renderings.
     
    ChemEngineer likes this.
  16. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Of which your post show you can't dispute.

    Evolution is a fairy tale. It's nothing more than extrapolation with artistic
    renderings.
     
  17. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I never said nuh uh nor have I been given sufficient evidence..
    Peer reviewed papers mean nothing except that your peers mostly agree. There are peer
    reviews for man made climate change and we all know they are bunk.

    So while we're at it. Show me a peer reviewed article that provides evidence for the gradual
    transitioning of species in the fossil record.

    Show some real evidence for evolution.
     
  18. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Not at all. The lack of evidence for evolution is a viable statement. Nobody, so far, in the
    science world has produced any evidence of the gradually transitioning species in the fossil
    record. I'm waiting.

    I'm demanding evidence. Put something up. Or are you really saying that there is no
    evidence for evolution but you're going to act like there since there is nothing?
     
  19. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    And your post supports my claims. You can't put up what you don't have.

    Thank you.
     
  20. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Let's see,
    You never have provided evidence that supports evolution. Check.
    You can't provide evidence that supports evolution. Check.
    You won't provide evidence that supports evolution. Check.

    Congratulations on your inability trifecta.
     
    ChemEngineer likes this.
  21. rahl

    rahl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    54,257
    Likes Received:
    5,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    your argument amounts to "nuh uh". And it is a demonstrable lie for you to claim you have not been given sufficient evidence.
    and this is how we all know you don't have the slightest clue as to what the **** you are talking about, in a scientific discussion. Lol
    https://phys.org/journals/journal-of-human-evolution/
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  22. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    ... the evidence for evolution continues to remain extremely weak.
     
  23. Prunepicker

    Prunepicker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2014
    Messages:
    6,079
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What's the use of putting up a post if you aren't going to read it? You didn't read the
    post.

    Seriously, evolution is a joke. We both know that. But why do you want to accept something
    that's based on extrapolation? What's the real reason? You and I both know science has
    nothing to do with your decision.
     
  24. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    4,749
    Likes Received:
    1,549
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The peer review process is not a voting in system in which the reviewer votes on whether they agree or not. It's a process of vetting the submitter's research for a minimum academic standard. It's meant to determine if the research is relevant, unbiased, conducted legitimately (non-fraudulently), is of quality work, etc. The conclusions are often hotly debated and disputed so if agreement by the reviewers were a requirement it would actually significantly impede the publication process nevermind make it more biased which is what all reputable journals want to avoid. That's not to say there aren't faults with the process, but overall it works pretty well.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2017
    rahl and Cosmo like this.
  25. ChemEngineer

    ChemEngineer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,793
    Likes Received:
    796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Picker, I am only able to see your responses as I have placed quite a few on my Ignore List after seeing that they have NOTHING to contribute. I suggest you save your time by being more discerning as to what you read. You're way out of their league.
    "Silence is the best reply to a fool."
    "Answer not a fool according to his folly lest thou be like unto him."
    "A bridle for the donkey, a whip for the horse and a rod for the fool's back."
     

Share This Page