Fallacies of Evolution

Discussion in 'Science' started by usfan, Jan 7, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Programmer

    Programmer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2016
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're putting forward that there's some change in the way genes work now from the way that they appear to have always worked. No evidence supports that view and you don't actually propose any yourself. Where does that leave your position? In checkmate I say.

    Again, you should expect very little success wielding taxonomy itself as a natural property. Was this a deliberate dialectic ploy of yours or had you not realized that you'd based your entire understanding of the topic on semantics?
     
  2. One Mind

    One Mind Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2014
    Messages:
    20,296
    Likes Received:
    7,744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The idea of "given enough time" is an assumption, for we have not found the genetic evidence of this happening, right? We would have to know of the mechanism involved, and knowing it could be reproduced, by doing it, right? Yet all that is actually being said is that time is the factor needed, vast amounts of time. Yet at some point in that time, something has to happen at the genetic level. If we knew what happens, the mechanism requiring vast time we would have evidence. So here we have A which through some mechanism yields B, but we do not know what that mechanism is.

    Isn't there some kind of wall between us turning a fish into a dog? Or even a cat into a dog? What is the natural process, the mechanism on the genetic level that achieves one life form changing into another with little genetic commonality ? We do not know, right? For if we knew, and using intelligence, manipulate this, skipping the vast time, we could replicate it. Right? Yet even with our intelligence we cannot do this and if we could, the author of this OP would not be asking for evidence. I see where he is coming from, and it seems to be a rather hard question to answer with anything approaching certainty. Yet evolutionists speak with utter certainty. As the theist and the atheist speak with such certainty. I think the same thing is going on here with the evolutionists. Not in regards to horizontal for we can provide evidence. What environmental stimulus is involved with genetic changes, or what genetic events and mechanisms are involved in the creation of dissimilar life forms? If we know this, that would be he evidence the OP asked for.


    What sparked the tremendous rise of a great variety of dissimilar life forms in the Cambrian era? Does nature abhor a life vacuum when the conditions will support it? And will rush to fill it? IF the needed elements are available? Akin to the information needed at the quantum level for an atom to work?
     
  3. Programmer

    Programmer New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2016
    Messages:
    85
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think that science is really there to burst the bubbles of the faithful. There's no active consternation with evolution theory in the biology community. The findings related to evolution may help someone who is looking to identify fossils they found or understand how a newly discovered plant specimen relates to other life. So many of these simple studies have happened without uncovering contradictions to the way we understand things, that the body of science does seem like a very conclusive demonstration. It's not accessible to people who don't study the work that other people have done.

    There will never be an end to the debating of the second group you mention. Science is not a tool for shutting down debate and not all principles demonstrate to the untrained eye.

    Regarding the moths experiment, it is a demonstration of the mechanics of evolution. When it's combined with genetics, this natural experiment explains a lot about how things have come to be. Particularly that moth populations in the home counties were converse to the London population, it's used as a way of understanding how environment drives change, and location/isolation drives speciation.

    The confidence in speciation comes from the genetic relationships that we see between species. Because we know how genes are transferred and how they get minced up and rearranged in reproduction, we can tell if there's descendancy or ascendency in these interspecies genetic relationships. It's generally accepted that this sort of DNA evidence is more accurate than looking at things with the naked eye and surmising probabilities about who's the daddy or who's blood was on the scene. The same applies here. This is the strongest evidence of evolution, but it's the evidence that gets overlooked by the religious/misunderstanding group, probably due to how much studying has to be done to understand it first hand.
     
  4. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I listed the mechanisms.
    In order to help separate science from science fiction I suggest taking a course in evolutionary biology and one in paleontology.

    Moving on.
     
  5. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok, since we can't seem to deal with the science, i'll address one of the popular arguments that has been presented. This is not a proof of the ToE, or evidence for it, but attempts to smear any who would question the theory.

    1. 'Your theism has blinded you to the truth of evolution.'
    This argument implies that the critic of the theory has a hidden agenda, & cannot accept scientific evidence because of personal religious bias. Their religious bias won't let them see the obvious evidence for the theory.

    Let us examine this premise. It is flawed in many ways, but the major one is the obvious fact that a great many theists believe in evolution as an explanation of origins. They may include a supernatural entity in there, somewhere, but there is no conflict between theism & the ToE.

    THEREFORE, the premise is false, & has no validity. A theist can objectively examine the SCIENTIFIC claims of the ToE, without compromising their core beliefs. A belief in God does not conflict with a belief in evolution. Millions of people do this. I would predict that if you took a survey of theists on this forum, most would say they believe in the ToE.

    Therefore, the argument is invalid, & should not be repeated ad nauseum, as it has been here. It is flawed in observable reality, & has no evidence. It is merely a prejudicial smear to dodge any criticisms of the SCIENCE of the ToE.

    It does, however bring up an interesting question:

    Why would an atheist believer in the ToE accuse such a thing? It is obviously flawed, logically & factually. Why would an atheist suggest that a theist cannot objectively examine the science behind this theory?

    I suggest that it is projection. Unlike the theist, the atheist cannot exist, philosophically, without the ToE, or some other theory of naturalistic origins, and there are none other, as we are constantly reminded. So SOME atheists cannot examine the science behind the theory, because they are too invested in it PHILOSOPHICALLY. Any questioning of the theory is an attack on their core beliefs. Their foundations are rattled, & they are left adrift in a sea of doubt, if they lose faith in the ToE. That is why SOME of them react so emotionally & angrily toward any critique of the theory.

    So this argument has no validity for the theist, who can keep his worldview whether evolution is true or not, & who can examine the scientific claims of the ToE critically, & dispassionately. But SOME atheists, who are not secure in their beliefs, or who cling to the belief in evolution as the only naturalistic explanation for origins, react irrationally, as religious ideologues often do. Their protests against theists who might examine the claims of the ToE are biased & prejudiced, not based on scientific evidence.

    So the atheist who accuses, 'Your theism is blinding you to the evidence of evolution!' is merely displaying his own blindness, & is demonstrating his closed mindedness in examining the claims of a scientific theory. To him, it has become a religion, which he defends with jihadist zeal. Any who dare question their sacred tenets of faith are blasphemers, & should be attacked mercilessly.

    I know of no other explanation for the irrational hysteria that some atheists have for anyone who questions the ToE.
     
  6. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then why can you not produce ONE empirical fact that can support the theory? I don't need 'mountains' of evidence, or 'tens of thousands of scientists'... just one would suffice. it would be a start, at least.

    But you cannot produce even ONE compelling fact that demonstrates that vertical changes in the genetic structure are even possible. Observable science says it is not. Countless experiments say otherwise.

    The task here is very simple:

    Provide evidence for the macro theory of evolution.

    That's it. Not smearing & attacking the presumed motives of the questioner. Not dodging & weaving with irrelevant deflections. Not claiming all the logical fallacies listed in the OP.

    Put up or shut up. Show me. Prove yourself to be a 'man of science' & not just a religious ideologue.
    Nobody has provided any scientific studies, or any evidence for the claim. It remains a bold assertion of belief, only.
     
  7. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your "third alternative - the scientific approach" is exactly the process that has been, and continues to be, used to create the overwhelming acceptance of TOE in its current form.


    Nonsense. Your need to try to interject a god into the equation is just that - your need.

    Science does rule out the option of "God did it". If science were to allow your version of GodDitIt, then science must give equal status to LastThursdayism.

    It's too bad you don't understand the implications of your own analogy. Prior to Michelson-Morley science knew that light traveled from point A to point B.
    Following Michelson-Morley science knew that light traveled from point A to point B. Michelson-Morley and subsequently Einstein were just refinements of the manner in which light traveled from point A to point B. The same thing has occurred repeatedly in regards to TOE and indeed to things in all branches of science. The details within TOE have constantly been questioned and refined.

    In over 100 years no one has disproved TOE. The opposite has occurred. As more and more scientists have investigated all aspects of TOE, more and more confirmation has been established. People like Behe have tried by asserting that the eye is so complex it just couldn't have developed naturally. His assertions have been thoroughly rebuked. In fact the key to proving Behe wrong was by showing an alternative.

    Again...

    It's really quite simple, either nature did it or GodDidIt. I believe nature did it. I am quite sure you believe GodDidIt, even if you will not admit it.

    Perhaps I'm wrong. It's easy to prove me wrong. Just show a third alternative.
     
  8. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This question has been posed to those claiming TOE is false for many decades and NEVER been answered. It will not be answered this time either in favor of more dodging and distraction.
     
  9. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually the premise has a very sound footing. You make your argument by assuming that all "theists" have the same beliefs. That is incorrect. Most theists take the bible with big grains of salt. Most theists take much of the bible as allegory. These are the theists, including many clergy, who accept TOE.


    Some theists, especially Fundamentalist Christians take the bible to be the literal word of god. They believe Genesis and everything in it from "In the beginning" through to Noah. These are the theists, including some on this forum, who deny TOE.

    As I previously stated in a post addressed to YOU...


    See above.

    Once again we have a religious fundamentalist who thinks he understands me. I became an atheist long before I ever heard of evolution or creationism. I put the concept of god into the same place as I put the concept of Santa Clause - for the same reasons.


    If your theism is a Fundamentalist belief that the biblical account in Genesis is true, then yes 'Your theism is blinding you to the evidence of evolution!' But let's see if I'm right.

    USFAN, do you believe that the biblical account in Genesis is true?
     
  10. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Alright, i guess we're not going to have a scientific debate.. anytime evolution is brought up, its always a religious or philosophical debate that end up raging. I should resign myself to that inevitability. :D

    ..don't get me wrong.. i love a rousing philosophical discussion or debate.. i had just hoped for a more scientific discussion, here. I suppose the blurring of those lines is too prevalent in our culture to make a distinction.

    Here is a thread i started a while back about philosophical beliefs.. it covers origins, morality, destiny, & purpose. I could fire it up again, if that is what everyone wants to talk about.. it certainly is a fascinating subject.

     
  11. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you really understand science? If you google "empirical facts definition" you get "Empirical evidence"...

    You are essentially asking for an observational experiment to replicate millions of years of history. That's a nice dodge, but that's all it is. You have never observed a hair grow (empirical fact), but you know when you need a haircut (scientific evidence).


    Science deals in evidence...
    My emphasis...
    When the chromosomes from a certain stage of the cell cycle are
    stained in a special way, they will appear under a microscope to have
    a series of dark and light bands. When many photos of
    each chromosome are carefully analyzed, diagrams of each can be
    developed for easier comparison of details.
    Each pair of chromosomes in an organismÂ’s full set of chromosomes
    has its own unique pattern of bands, characteristic for each species.
    When the chromosomes from two different species are compared and
    are found to have very similar banding patterns, what do you suppose
    this suggests? These matched patterns indicate a common source – a shared biological origin of those
    chromosomes. The chances that two sets of identical complex banding
    patterns had independent unrelated origins are vanishingly small. We
    conclude that those two species must have had a
    common origin – a common ancestry.




    Show one.
     
  12. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I will gladly engage you in a serious and science based debate about Evolution, on the condition that you at least accept scientifically verified data for what it is. As a beginning point I request we start with your explanation of the reasons why the theory should be considered false.
     
  13. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep. That question has been around since ancient man began to think and speak 200,000 years ago. In lieu of any other answers, man invented supernatural beings who lived in the sky and proclaimed: GodDidIt.

    Two hundred thousand years later some still believe it.
     
  14. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The claims he makes are the same ones creationists have been making for years and have long been debunked.
    I find him ...predictably boring.
     
  15. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    how about actually attempting to address the evidence presented in this thread instead of hand waving it away? You asked me to present you with evidence a few pages back. I requited a post of mine several pages before that where I provided a peer reviewed paper on evolution. You have yet to address it. You keep stating no evidence has been presented. this is a demonstrable lie you keep getting called on but refuse to address. So, here it is again........

    Your argument thus far amounts to "nuh uh". That doesn't cut it. You need something peer reviewed if you want to attempt to refute what has been given.
     
  16. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Clearly there is a raging debate on the validity of evolution, and its not one sided. If the evolutionists want to end the debate, end their bickering and emotional wailing, and educate people, then do the demonstration. If they want to continue the debate and emotional wailing, then continue the wailing.

    <>

    As to the argument that the proof of evolution is too complicated for all except the most highly anointed to understand:

    Richard Feynman claimed that if you could not explain something at the Freshman level, then you do not understand it (that's in the preface to the Feynman Lecture Series, and the sentiment is mentioned multiple times in his books).

    Einstein said something along the lines of "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother", or to a 6 year old, etc.

    Interesting how two of the smartest people to live in the 20th century, 2 people who worked in an intensely complicated field, not only wanted to explain their work to "outsiders" but took pride in the ability to do so. When they were presented with people who were uneducated, they did not ridicule or stand on their pedestal but made efforts to educate and bring understanding.

    Quite the opposite of supporters of the theory of evolution.
     
  17. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The scientific approach requires objectivity, not emotionalism, and not such commitment to a hypothesis that it is placed upon a pedestal and put above criticism.

    <>

    Science does not rule out the "god did it" option. If it does then it would have to prove that god does not exist, and it certainly has not done that. What science cannot do is evaluate the "god did it" option because that option is so malleable and imprecise it cannot be tested or built upon I any meaningful way.

    Science cannot disprove God, but it cannot work with that approach either, and must set it aside.

    <>

    You do not understand the ether concept or Michelson Morley. It was not about light being able to travel from A to B, it was about the way light traveled. Light travels form A to B (if it did not we would all be blind), that's obvious and requires no experiment or proof.

    The physics of the 19th century required light to travel through a medium (called ether), light could not travel through a total void. Due to the high speed of the earth, light traveling in the direction of the earths motion should have a different speed than light traveling perpendicular or opposite the earths motion. Michelson-Morley measured those time differences, and showed no difference. The ether hypothesis was wrong.

    After the experiment showed the ether concept was wrong, people tried to come up with replacements, such as nonstationary ether, but all failed. There was no replacement to explain how light traveled until 25 years later.

    Why you insist that in order to disprove a hypothesis an immediate replacement is required is bizarre. Should scientists have closed their minds and put on blinders and continued believing the ether concept for another 25 years because there was no replacement? Ridiculous.
     
  18. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    TOE is not put above criticism. Portions of TOE are constantly challenged by scientists. That's how science works. That's what leads to progress.


    Science has no need to disprove anything and everything that man's imagination creates.

    I say "rule out", you say "set aside". Are you hoping if they set it aside today that tomorrow they will allow it? Nonsense.



    I don't. However, most major theories do remain in place until a replacement with better evidence is formulated.
    • Aether - No Aether
    • Geocentrism - Heliocentrism
    • Steady state universe - Expanding universe.
    • Fixed Continents - Continental Drift.
    • Creationism - Evolution

    You seem to want to go back to a time when people believed god created the sun in an unchanging universe to travel around the earth, shining its light on the continents as they had always been.

    After it was proven that an aether did not exist they were absolutely correct in discontinuing their belief in it.

    After TOE is disproved, scientists will be absolutely correct in discontinuing their belief in it.

    Either nature did it or GodDidIt. I believe nature did it as formulated in TOE. I am quite sure you believe GodDidIt, even if you will not admit it (but you certainly haven't denied it, have you?).
     
  19. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The following are some analogies to help illustrate the foolishness of the micro-macro issue.
    In each example, imagine a creationist uttering the statement:

    I believe in individual steps, but not a whole flight of stairs.
    I believe in paving stones, but not milestones; and certainly not entire roads.
    I believe in points, but not lines; and certainly not long lines.
    I believe in minutes, but not hours. Or hours, but not days. Or days, but not years.
    I believe in twigs, but not branches. Most definitely, twigs are not connected to trees.
     
  20. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yeah, well as far as I know the idea of it being a "Mental process" is original with you, so I don't know what the hell your point is.

    This assumes, of course, that understanding is not being confused with self-deception.

    AFAIK, this is merely a comically pretentious way of saying small changes add up to big ones over time, and it's not news to pretty much anybody.

    You've got me confused with someone else.

    Would that you knew how truly you speak.

    Again, the comparison is idiotic, since a pilot is no more a scientist or professor than is a bus driver.

    I note you've once again failed to enumerate them. What the hell are you waiting for?

    So the way you figure it, Einstein wasn't a scientist. Got that about right, haven't I?

    Yeah, well failure to disprove a hypothesis which makes no testable predictions hardly constitutes anything like validation for said hypothesis, except in the minds of the gullible.

    Indeed it would require imagination, as I've never seen a creationist say anything like that. He might say he's never seen individual steps assemble themselves into a flight of stairs; but then who would say otherwise?
     
  21. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again? If you have asked me to enumerate them in the past I missed it. If you responded to one person per post it would be easier to see who you are talking to. OK - Enumeration: You believe the Genesis account of creation as written in the Christian bible.

    You must have a problem understanding the English language.
    "Science rules out GodDidIt" is not the same as "Scientists do not believe in god". There are many scientists who believe in god and believe in TOE. They just don't take the Genesis story seriously.

    However, science does not allow for the supernatural. If it did, LastThursdayism is just as valid as biblical creationism and just as valid as the Cherokee beginnings story.

    So you think Einstein believed in your bible based Christian god do ya?
    http://www.lettersofnote.com/2009/10/word-god-is-product-of-human-weakness.html
    In January of 1954, just a year before his death, Albert Einstein wrote the following letter to philosopher Erik Gutkind after reading his book, "Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt," and made known his views on religion.



    I do not believe you know more about science than the folks at Berkeley (emphases mine)

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#e1

    Misconceptions about evolution
    Unfortunately, many people have persistent misconceptions about evolution. Some are simple misunderstandings, ideas that develop in the course of learning about evolution, possibly from school experiences and/or the media. Other misconceptions may stem from purposeful attempts to misrepresent evolution and undermine the public's understanding of this topic.


    MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable.

    CORRECTION: This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can't run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting. In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. ​
     
  22. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok, so i will revise your premise thusly:
    'Anyone who questions the ToE is a bible thumping fundamentalist'.

    The premise is still absurd, with no evidence. It is just a smear, by you, to deflect from the impotence of your arguments & evidence.
    1. You do not 'know' about everyone's beliefs, who question the ToE. You merely assume that prejudicially.
    2. The personal religious beliefs of a critic of a scientific theory are irrelevant. Many people have had diverse religious beliefs over the millennia (including wild eyed, bible thumping fundamentalists) & have engaged in scientific research, criticism, & discovery.
    3. You have not established that BEING a 'bible thumping fundamentalist' automatically discredits any facts or logic they present. You merely assert that.
    4. The premise ignores the challenge of the OP, & is irrelevant to the discussion.
    5. It deflects from any scientific debate with ad hominem & appeals to authority, both logical fallacies.

    THEREFORE, your repeated assertions are lies, & are presented as a deflection and/or pejorative, for unknown reasons.

    I suspect that you are projecting, still. YOU have irrational beliefs in some philosophical construct, & cannot discuss it rationally & dispassionately, so you assume others cannot either. But that is your problem to deal with, & not other posters.
    That is the topic of the OP. I have asked for evidence that refutes my premises. So if you want to engage me in a serious scientific debate, you will need to begin by presenting evidence for the theory. Provide scientific evidence of structural changes in the genome, added traits, & other such claims of the macro ToE.. not just observed variability within an organism.
    You keep repeating this, but ignore my replies. I don't debate links. If you cannot grasp that concept, i don't know what else to say.
    Debating with links is a caricature of internet 'debates'. They go something like this:

    Oh yeah? Well answer this!! :cheerleader:
    www.myopinionisbrilliant.com

    Ha! That shows how stupid YOU are! :eyepopping:
    www.youropinionisstupid.com

    From that source? It has been completely discredited. :evil:
    www.smearthesource.com

    That shows what you know.. my source is smarter than your source.. :oldman:
    www.wearethereallysmartones.com

    You see how a link debate goes? There is nothing being said, & certainly nothing that enlightens or informs. It is a debate by proxy, with assumed distant 'experts' who don't have to answer to their claims, but can make them with the illusion of expertise.

    It is nothing more than an argument of authority, revised to the internet age. You are making no arguments yourself, but merely dodging the issues.

    Now, i have said, if you make a statement or argument, & wish to support it with a quote or a study, a link or source is fine.. desirable, even. But to 'argue' with links is absurd, & only makes me think you either cannot express your opinions yourself, or are clueless about the subject, & mask it with deflective links. So please. Stop posting some standalone link, thinking it means something. I won't even click it, if you have nothing else to say.
     
  23. ecco

    ecco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2016
    Messages:
    3,387
    Likes Received:
    860
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I asked one question. Somehow you missed it. So I'll post it again.

    If your theism is a Fundamentalist belief that the biblical account in Genesis is true, then yes 'Your theism is blinding you to the evidence of evolution!' But let's see if I'm right.
    USFAN, do you believe that the biblical account in Genesis is true?
     
  24. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    hand waiving away the evidence provided doesn't change the fact it's been provided. So, continuing to claim that no evidence has been presented to you for evolution, is an easily proven lie.

    "nuh uh" isn't an argument.
     
  25. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]

    No arguments given.. no rebuttals to any of my points, just repeated lies & phony narratives. You know that this is just a leftist propaganda tactic, & is not part of rational debate, don't you?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page