July 8, 2010

Arguments Evolutionists Should Avoid

Evolution, Debunking Atheists
Once again AIG has produced a very helpful list for people. All of the evolutionists might want to go and check the list out before discussing things here. It just makes thing easier for all of us and it will allow a better flow of the discussion.

Way to go, Answers in Genesis, you did well again. Brilliant work indeed. I suggest to everyone who hasn't, to get a subscription to their award winning magazine "Answers"

Do you want a gift subscription? Email me.

Don't forget to right mouse and click "save link as" the movie: Science Confirms the Bible Is True
or you can click here.


bit.ly/evolavoid

69 comments:

  1. I don't avoid any arguments in the first place, but after reading the list on AiG I definitely would not avoid these arguments. I have evidence that AiG is presenting false information about most of them and fallacies concerning the rest. Bring it on, your lying for Jesus doesn't impress me in the least.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I have evidence that AiG is presenting false information about most of them and fallacies concerning the rest."

    Yeah, sure.

    "As for science confirming the bible, we've already been through that, I think."

    Science has confirmed much of the Bible, especially archaeology. Science has not disproved the Bible, much to the dismay of the religion of atheism, and its sacred sacrament of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course science hasw disproved the bible- right from the very first sentence.

    Ken Ham. Ha. Ha. Ha!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Of course science hasw disproved the bible- right from the very first sentence." Big talk from a tiny tadpole. And also, you are a liar. People like to demand that I "prove it" in Weblog comments, as if this was an actual forum. OK, it's smaller. PROVE IT, LIAR.

    ReplyDelete
  5.      "Science has not disproved the [b]ible..."
         The bible says that the sun goes around the earth. Science gave us the empirical observation that this is not so. Christians make a lot of excuses. I'm sure many of them actually believe their excuses. But the fact is that its a mistake. And it points to the fact that the bible was written by men.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where does the bible say that? Chapter and verse please? Stop spreading lies, the only one mistaken is you. Bible does not say that--

      Delete
  6. Pvb,

    >>The [B]ible says that the sun goes around the earth.

    Have you ever heard of a literary device? Even, if that were not the case have you ever heard of a sunrise? If we call it that today are we all just fake, dumb people? I don't see anyone trying to rename it, you know, to be more accurate.

    Maybe, just maybe, in the language back then it was a common allegory or something. I wish you had more faith(trust) in God's Word. It would make things easier for you to understand.

    Ever heard the term in a poem or song "the moon shines bright"? Its an expression not to be taken literally.

    Don't forget to download the video "Science Confirms the Bible Is True", or click here, because Lisle makes that exact point in it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah, Dan, a literary device.

    ""People gave ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus] who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."
    Martin Luther, "Works," Volume 22, c. 1543"

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dan:

         Bluntly, when the bible was first written, it was thought to contain no literary devices. It was taken absolutely literally. After all, if anything could be a literary device, then anything could be a literary device. Perhaps the resurrection could be redefined as a figure of speech. No, it is only when reality has been shown to contradict the bible's clear teachings that claims of literary device come up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Argument 1: Evolution is a fact

    When our core beliefs are attacked, it’s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: “My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong.” That’s exactly why we cannot trust mere human understanding to explain the unobservable past—emotion and pride get in the way. Evolution is not a fact, no matter how many times evolutionists say it is. It’s a framework built on assumptions about the past—assumptions that will never have direct, first-hand, observational proof.


    The process of Evolution (change in allele frequency in a population over time) is an observable fact.

    The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain how this process occurs.

    Theories aren't 'proven' they are the best explanation of the observable facts - to this end the current Evolutionary Synthesis is the best explanation.

    If you have a better theory that explains all the data then a Nobel prize awaits you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Argument 2: Only the uneducated reject evolution

    Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define “educated people” as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background (e.g., if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated). There are many lists of well-educated scholars who look to the Bible for answers (here’s one)—and we could point out Darwin’s own deficit of formal education (he earned a bachelor’s in theology). But the bigger issue is that education—or lack—does not guarantee the validity of a person’s position.


    I'd happily agree with AiG here, you don't need to be uneducated to reject evolution, you can be wilfully ignorant or rampantly dishonest instead.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Argument 3: Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution

    The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true: the “evidence” supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed (i.e., moving from the Bible, God’s Word, to humanism, man’s word). Creationists continue to see everything in light of God’s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no “neutral” starting point; everyone—whether they acknowledge it or not—interprets the “facts” according to a particular way of thinking (i.e., worldview).


    Prior to Darwin much of the evidence that supports the modern evolutionary synthesis just hadn't been discovered - it is the evidence discovered over the last 150 years which has built on and confirmed much of Darwin's original theory, as well as showing where it was incorrect. They're right about one thing though, if you base your thinking on an incorrect starting point - such as assuming everything in the bible is literally true - then you really will have a hard time reconciling data that directly contradicts your prior assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So true pvblivs, it needs repeating:

    "Bluntly, when the bible was first written, it was thought to contain no literary devices. It was taken absolutely literally. After all, if anything could be a literary device, then anything could be a literary device. Perhaps the resurrection could be redefined as a figure of speech. No, it is only when reality has been shown to contradict the bible's clear teachings that claims of literary device come up."

    It will take a long time, but eventually our species will abandon religion for reason. I hope.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Argument 4: Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

    Why does this argument fail? We’ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That’s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism—like an amoeba—turn into a goat. Go ahead. We’ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there’s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.


    I've never personally heard this argument. I have heard the argument whereby creationists are asked to explain why they continually attack the Theory of Evolution whilst ignoring Gravitational Theory or Atomic Theory if something being theoretical is such a bad thing. Red Herring IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Argument 5: Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

    Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space—long before this could have been directly observed (Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22). The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science “proved” otherwise (which wasn’t the case—only a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat). But even if this were true (it’s not), direct, repeatable observation shows us the earth is round and orbiting the sun. Evolutionary stories about fossils are not direct observations; they’re assumption-based beliefs.


    Another argument I've never heard phrased in this manner. I've seen biblical literalists asked to explain why they don't believe the earth is flat when that is what the bible describes (a flat circle with a domed firmament spread over the earth like a tent - with windows in it that open to let the rain in). Red Herring number 2.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Argument 6: It’s here, so it must have evolved

    A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is “four,” we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that’s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless. The Bible offers another (and more sound) framework for how those traits and species came to be.


    Again I'd agree, no-one should just assume the truth of their conclusion. Fortunately evolutionary scientists have masses of data to underpin their claims that certain traits or species have evolved.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Argument 7: Natural selection is evolution

    This is likely the most abused argument on the list—and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules-to-man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything “new.” The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive. In fact, it’s an important component of the biblical worldview.


    Red Herring number 3. It's another argument that I have never heard. Anyone who has even a passing knowledge of evolution will know that natural selection is only a mechanism of the evolutionary process and not the be-all and end-all.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Argument 8: Common design means common ancestry

    Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans (homology), for example, do not prove common descent—that’s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.


    Considering evolution doesn't contain the concept of 'design' we can see this claim is misleading from the start, however, they double the fail in the first sentence - maybe the whole field of genetics has passed AiG by - evidence of common descent is observable in the genes (ERVs etc...).

    ReplyDelete
  18. Argument 9: Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

    Sedimentary layers show one thing: sedimentary layers. In other words, we can—and should—study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point: such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions. When we start from the Bible and examine the rocks within the framework of a global Flood, the need for long ages vanishes.


    This is geology not evolution - Red Herring number 4. Regardless, it's not just rocks that show the age of the earth.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Argument 10: Mutations drive evolution

    Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth—and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires—not even close. Some may benefit an organism (e.g., beetles on a windy island losing wings), but virtually every time mutations come with a cost.


    How schizophrenic can you be? You happily acknowledge mutations occur, then claim (without any evidence to back up the assertion) that those mutations cannot generate evolutionary change before acknowledging that mutations could cause beetles on a windy island may lose their wings as it's beneficial. What barrier is there that stops accumulated mutations making 2 populations sufficiently distinct that they can no longer breed and become 2 separate species?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Argument 11: The Scopes trial

    Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this: Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common—though completely flawed—perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account.


    What has the Scopes trial got to do with the truth (or otherwise) of evolution? Absolutely nothing. Red Herring number 5.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Argument 12: Science vs. religion

    News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces—reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it’s bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within (and, in fact, requires) a God-created universe. Otherwise, there’d be no reason to do science in the first place.


    And finally another one I can agree with - there truly is no conflict between science and religion because religion would first need to get some empirical evidence to support it before scientists cared to examine it. Until then science will carry on ignoring religion as the metaphysical belief system that it is.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Pvb,

    >>It was taken absolutely literally

    Aw, come on now. Any evidence of this assertion? Do you honestly believe that people back then did not know what a poem or parable was?

    Its obvious that a parable or a hyperbole is used. The context and language used makes it 'mostly' obvious and can't think of any exceptions to the rule at the moment.

    "If a man walks in the woods..." parable or hyperbole

    "If you sin you will burn..." literal

    Back to you though. I want to see this evidence that you may hold that shows that 'no one' used parables or hyperbole, or poetry back then.

    *fists on chin

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dan:

         "Back to you though. I want to see this evidence that you may hold that shows that 'no one' used parables or hyperbole, or poetry back then."
         That's not what I said; and you know it. Rufus has already given an example of how your "obvious literary device" was taken literally instead. It is a historical fact that that part of the biblical text was not considered symbolic until it could no longer be asserted that the sun moved around the earth.
         "'If a man walks in the woods...' parable or hyperbole
         "'If you sin you will burn...' literal"
         Or, more simply, "anything that can be checked, parable or hyperbole; anything that can't be checked by those pesky observations, literal." After all, men really do walk in the woods. But it is impossible to check the burning of the spirit after death.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Wow freddies_dead,

    Thanks for that. Just in case it gets taken down we have them available to reference, thanks to you.

    OK, lets get started.

    >>The process of Evolution (change in allele frequency in a population over time) is an observable fact.

    Notice the clarification? "allele" No one here said anything about within a species. Sure, what we call micro evolution we can all agree, just look at dogs and people, but Macro? That IS what evolution is postulating. Please, please, pretty please dare claim that is a FACT.

    So please be honest here and lets keep the general terms out of it. It may be a technique to distract and deceive for dishonest people to claim ALL of evolution is FACT when only a very small "micro" version is true, but you are better then that...so I thought. Please clarify the PARTS of evolution that you are claiming as fact in the future so I don't have to reference this comment.

    >>Theories aren't 'proven' they are the best explanation of the observable facts - to this end the current Evolutionary Synthesis is the best explanation.

    What you just said may be an acceptable, but that is not what is being pushed and you know it. Neo-Darwinism is a dogma. Neo-Darwinism is the Paradigm! Do I need to reference to the amount of times that "evolution is a fact" is postulated? Just Google it. Guess which website comes up number one? Yup, talk origins. Why not be honest here? *pfft .

    My belief in your honesty is waning. Talk about an attempt to move the goal posts. I am sure I can reference a fallacy to what you just did. (False dilemma?, Is–ought problem?) I will give it more thought.

    Moving...on? whew, this is going to be a long day

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dead,

    >>I'd happily agree with AiG here, you don't need to be uneducated to reject evolution, you can be wilfully ignorant or rampantly dishonest instead.

    Thanks for showing evidence to point 2. At least that was honest. But really who are you trying to convince here, me or you? Need a mirror for that claim?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dead,

    >>They're right about one thing though, if you base your thinking on an incorrect starting point...then you really will have a hard time reconciling data that directly contradicts your prior assumptions.

    I am surprised as to this admission by you. Nice job. We ALL understand that Evolution is the current paradigm and that is the beef that Pvblivs has,

    "if we get observation X then evolution is true and took path A; if we get observation Y then evolution is true and took path B; but no matter what observation we get evolution is true."

    Those don't interest me because they can't falsify the "theory."

    So thanks for admitting that the scientists are taking the philosophical position of metaphysical naturalism and it is the paradigm. FAIL!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dead,

    >>I've never personally heard this argument. (Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity)

    O'rly?

    Do you really need links? Again be honest here.

    I do remember people here referencing that point, like Stan, Jaunty Jack, bob, and even Clostridiophile, but I am not claiming you know about those situations, just pointing them out.

    For example.

    Pvblivs wrote: "I simply oppose all dogmas."

    Bob snaps back with: "Do you oppose gravity?"

    Its very common and I am confident you know this.

    Red Herring indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dead,

    >>Another argument I've never heard phrased in this manner. (Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat)

    Zilch said: "if we let ID in, we should also teach flat earth cosmology, astrology, and Holocaust denial. They all have just as much evidence as ID."

    As an example, when some doubt of evolutions is presented an Atheist may snap back dogmatically,

    So whales are fish, rabbits chew their cud, plants were made before light so how did they photosynthesis. The earth is flat and the center of the universe etc. etc.

    We all have heard it here, let alone elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dead,

    Re: Argument 6

    >>Fortunately evolutionary scientists have masses of data to underpin their claims that certain traits or species have evolved.

    Into other species? BZZZT! Wrong!

    Again the tactic of "general" description of "evolution" to show the absurdity of the skeptic is being used yet again. Micro evolution, sure. Macro evolution? Bzzzt, nada, zero, zilch.

    Be specific here to avoid the "general definition fallacy©" accusation.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dead,

    >>It's another argument that I have never heard. (Natural selection is evolution) Anyone who has even a passing knowledge of evolution will know that natural selection is only a mechanism of the evolutionary process and not the be-all and end-all.

    At the very least, you are admitting that evolution and natural selection go hand and hand. That is the point here, its entirely misleading. Selection, like breading dogs, happens. Natural selection can be observed, within a species of its kind.

    That does not show evidence that man evolved from an ape ancestor. Don't make me whip out my "general definition fallacy©" card.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dead,

    Argument 8: Common design means common ancestry.

    >>Considering evolution doesn't contain the concept of 'design' we can see this claim is misleading from the start,

    Valid point.

    >>they double the fail in the first sentence - maybe the whole field of genetics has passed AiG by - evidence of common descent is observable in the genes (ERVs etc...).

    Ad Hom aside, that still makes an inference/assumption then. To postulate that because genes mutate means that humans have ape ancestry. Its whole hardily misleading and a false assumption.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dead,

    Argument 9: Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

    >>This is geology not evolution - Red Herring number 4. Regardless, it's not just rocks that show the age of the earth.

    I almost would agree with you if it were not the fact that evolution NEEDS millions of years to work or be sensible. Without the evidence for an old earth/universe then evolution shrivels up and dies. They, geology and evolution, must be harmonious in their findings. They are definitely linked as the Paradigm. Your argument fails.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dead,

    Argument 10: Mutations drive evolution

    >>How schizophrenic can you be? You happily acknowledge mutations occur, then claim (without any evidence to back up the assertion) that those mutations cannot generate evolutionary change before acknowledging that mutations could cause beetles on a windy island may lose their wings as it's beneficial.

    This is getting beyond my pay grade but is "beetles on a windy island losing wings" the same as beetles on a scarce island gaining wings? There is a huge difference to me. I am sure many species would benefit from gaining flight. Imagine a flying gazelle. But that just is not the case. Again, these are mere assumptions, and projections, that are unfounded.

    >>What barrier is there that stops accumulated mutations making 2 populations sufficiently distinct that they can no longer breed and become 2 separate species?

    Now you are introducing something entirely different? Talk about strawman/ red herring #X. From what evidence, read assumptions, do you conclude this?

    You said, accumulated mutations making 2 populations sufficiently distinct that they can no longer breed and become 2 separate species.

    Are you claiming that people will be so different, races (read racist), that we can no longer bread with one another? Example, someday whites will not be able to bread with blacks? That we will become separate species? That is what you, and Hitler, are postulating here.

    Wow. Hitler Youth, coming to town near you.

    Maybe we can identify and eradicate that pesky "Christian Gene" huh?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dan
    I almost would agree with you if it were not the fact that evolution NEEDS millions of years to work or be sensible. Without the evidence for an old earth/universe then evolution shrivels up and dies. They, geology and evolution, must be harmonious in their findings. They are definitely linked as the Paradigm. Your argument fails.

    No, it's your "knowledge" of science history that fails. They came up with the old earth before the theory of evolution was accepted.

    At the time, there was no "theory of evolution" that geologists "had" to be "harmonious" with.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dan, theres so much wrong with your responses to freddies_dead - not to mention the original list - but I just wanted to comment on this one:

    "Are you claiming that people will be so different, races (read racist), that we can no longer bread with one another? Example, someday whites will not be able to bread with blacks? That we will become separate species? That is what you, and Hitler, are postulating here."

    No, how would that happen? All humans are the same species, with no significant differences between different races, any more than red hair and blond. To have humans evolve down different paths in the way you suggest would not relate to skin pigments. It would need a huge number of years, and a complete isolation of two or more populations. That, of course, cant happen, because we infest this world utterly, to the point that we prevent evolution of our species, in many ways. We dont adapt to our environment and predators, we now adapt the environment.

    I don't actually believe you don't understand this.

    ReplyDelete
  36. tehehe

    bread (to be read breed). Funny though

    Orange your point is flawed.

    >>All humans are the same species, with no significant differences between different races, any more than red hair and blond.

    That is my point, evolution says that we will indeed branch off. Nothing is some sacred species. Look at apes and humans. I know you are not saying that evolution has stopped with us. It was more of a hyperbole to his absurd postulated statement.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dan,
    That statement shows that you have no idea how evolution works, or why.

    ReplyDelete
  38. A population needs to isolated and have an environmental pressure to evolve, right?
    But with our large brains we eliminate the environmental pressures.

    ReplyDelete
  39. You claim my point is flawed? You are the one claiming evolution prescribes that humans must split into different species.

    "...evolution says that we will indeed branch off."
    Evolution says no such thing.

    No, you are just refusing to understand what people tell you. Actually I think you are pretending you don't understand, because it's really not complicated, and it's been explained to you ad infinitum.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I've got to say, Answers in Genesis has a long history of lies, damned lies (heh), and intentional misrepresentations, so this list isn't really surprising.

    (Oh, by the way, you're likely to get a visit soon from one of my two stalkers. So enjoy that.)

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dan +†+ said...

    Wow freddies_dead,

    Thanks for that. Just in case it gets taken down we have them available to reference, thanks to you.

    OK, lets get started.

    >>The process of Evolution (change in allele frequency in a population over time) is an observable fact.

    Notice the clarification? "allele" No one here said anything about within a species. Sure, what we call micro evolution we can all agree, just look at dogs and people, but Macro? That IS what evolution is postulating.


    Where in Evolutionary Theory is the requirement for speciation?
    Speciation does happen due to the process of evolution but nowhere is it demanded. Your insistence on micro/macro delineation does not actually cause such a delineation to exists in reality. What is the barrier that prevents change from building until one population can no longer breed with another population?

    Please, please, pretty please dare claim that is a FACT.

    So please be honest here and lets keep the general terms out of it.


    I was distinguishing between the process of evolution and the theory behind it - you should maybe request the AiG stops generalising.

    It may be a technique to distract and deceive for dishonest people to claim ALL of evolution is FACT when only a very small "micro" version is true, but you are better then that...so I thought. Please clarify the PARTS of evolution that you are claiming as fact in the future so I don't have to reference this comment.

    What are you taking about 'parts'? There are no parts as I see it. I am stating that the process of evolution (change in allele frequency in a population over time) is a fact (it has been observed). The theory of evolution attempts to explain this process and as such cannot be regarded as 'fact'. The theory will change as new evidence is discovered and could be overthrown entirely if another explanation does a better job.

    >>Theories aren't 'proven' they are the best explanation of the observable facts - to this end the current Evolutionary Synthesis is the best explanation.

    What you just said may be an acceptable, but that is not what is being pushed and you know it.


    I am not 'pushing' anything. Most of the stuff I've read on evolution isn't 'pushing' anything either.

    Neo-Darwinism is a dogma.

    Neo-Darwinism doesn't exist.

    Neo-Darwinism is the Paradigm!

    No, the modern Evolutionary Synthesis is the paradigm because it best describes the data.

    Do I need to reference to the amount of times that "evolution is a fact" is postulated? Just Google it. Guess which website comes up number one? Yup, talk origins. Why not be honest here? *pfft .

    I was honest - the process of evolution is fact, the theory of evolution is the best explanation of the process. You tell me to stop generalising and then do just that ... hypocrite.

    My belief in your honesty is waning. Talk about an attempt to move the goal posts. I am sure I can reference a fallacy to what you just did. (False dilemma?, Is–ought problem?) I will give it more thought.

    I think you should as I haven't done anything of the sort, merely shown the difference between evolution the process and evolution the theory.

    Moving...on? whew, this is going to be a long day

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dan +†+ said...

    Dead,

    >>I'd happily agree with AiG here, you don't need to be uneducated to reject evolution, you can be wilfully ignorant or rampantly dishonest instead.

    Thanks for showing evidence to point 2. At least that was honest. But really who are you trying to convince here, me or you? Need a mirror for that claim?


    No less evidence then AiG gave for their claims ;-)

    I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, merely responding to the claims made by AiG.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dan +†+ said...

    Dead,

    >>They're right about one thing though, if you base your thinking on an incorrect starting point...then you really will have a hard time reconciling data that directly contradicts your prior assumptions.

    I am surprised as to this admission by you. Nice job.


    Thanks for selectively editing my post for your own purposes - quote mining for Jesus now - an you have the cheek to call me dishonest.


    We ALL understand that Evolution is the current paradigm and that is the beef that Pvblivs has,

    "if we get observation X then evolution is true and took path A; if we get observation Y then evolution is true and took path B; but no matter what observation we get evolution is true."


    I see nothing wrong with that statement - as I've already pointed out, the process of evolution is fact so it is true that the process of evolution takes place under both of those circumstances. Although I suspect that wasn't what you were hoping to achieve with that quote but then maybe you should use such general terms (or at least quotations that use such general terms) ;-)

    Those don't interest me because they can't falsify the "theory."

    You have been given examples of what would falsify the Theory of Evolution before, I see no reason to trot them out once more.

    So thanks for admitting that the scientists are taking the philosophical position of metaphysical naturalism and it is the paradigm. FAIL!

    Maybe you could point to the exact part of my post which states that? If not you should stop twisting my words to generate your strawman argument.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dan +†+ said...

    Dead,

    >>I've never personally heard this argument. (Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity)

    O'rly?


    Yes, really.

    Do you really need links? Again be honest here.

    Your link explains beautifully how the processses of evolution and gravity are observable fact while there are many 'theories' which have been espoused to explain those facts - thanks for that - but I fail to see how it backs up the AiG argument in the slightest. Nowhere in the link does anybody states that doubting one is like doubting the other.

    I do remember people here referencing that point, like Stan, Jaunty Jack, bob, and even Clostridiophile, but I am not claiming you know about those situations, just pointing them out.

    For example.

    Pvblivs wrote: "I simply oppose all dogmas."

    Bob snaps back with: "Do you oppose gravity?"

    Its very common and I am confident you know this.


    Your confidence is misplaced...
    As I said, the argument I have seen is the one where creationists are asked to explain their attack on the theory of evolution for it's 'theoretical' status when they don't attack gravitational theory or atomic theory for the same reason.

    Red Herring indeed.

    Both the AiG claim and your defence of it, yes.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Dan +†+ said...

    Dead,

    >>Another argument I've never heard phrased in this manner. (Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat)

    Zilch said: "if we let ID in, we should also teach flat earth cosmology, astrology, and Holocaust denial. They all have just as much evidence as ID."


    Zilch's argument is that if you allow one idea with no evidence you should allow all idea with a similar lack of evidence - which, of course, isn't the same argument at all, but that seems to have escaped you.

    As an example, when some doubt of evolutions is presented an Atheist may snap back dogmatically,

    So whales are fish, rabbits chew their cud, plants were made before light so how did they photosynthesis. The earth is flat and the center of the universe etc. etc.


    They may, but I have yet to see it.

    We all have heard it here, let alone elsewhere.

    Unless you have an actual example of it happening then I may be convinced, however, all you have presented is a completely different argument from Zilch and one you made up.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Dan +†+ said...

    Dead,

    Re: Argument 6

    >>Fortunately evolutionary scientists have masses of data to underpin their claims that certain traits or species have evolved.

    Into other species? BZZZT! Wrong!

    Yes - of course here we get into the wonderfully grey area of defining exactly what constitutes a 'species'. You will of course claim that they are the same 'kind' while refusing to offer a full definition of 'kinds'.

    Again the tactic of "general" description of "evolution" to show the absurdity of the skeptic is being used yet again. Micro evolution, sure. Macro evolution? Bzzzt, nada, zero, zilch.

    Be specific here to avoid the "general definition fallacy©" accusation.


    I am being specific. It is the process of evolution that leads to speciation events. However, neither the process nor the theory demands that they happen.

    As an aside was it you that added this 'fallacy' to the wiki page?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Dan +†+ said...

    Dead,

    >>It's another argument that I have never heard. (Natural selection is evolution) Anyone who has even a passing knowledge of evolution will know that natural selection is only a mechanism of the evolutionary process and not the be-all and end-all.

    At the very least, you are admitting that evolution and natural selection go hand and hand. That is the point here, its entirely misleading. Selection, like breading dogs, happens. Natural selection can be observed, within a species of its kind.


    Yes they do, but one is not the other and vice versa. As for misleading - any chance of a definition of 'kind'.

    That does not show evidence that man evolved from an ape ancestor.

    Total non-sequitur. What does this have to do with whether natural selection is evolution or not?

    Don't make me whip out my "general definition fallacy©" card.

    You can whip out whatever you want, it's your blog, but you should be careful as there may be children watching.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Dan +†+ said...

    Dead,

    Argument 8: Common design means common ancestry.

    >>Considering evolution doesn't contain the concept of 'design' we can see this claim is misleading from the start,

    Valid point.

    >>they double the fail in the first sentence - maybe the whole field of genetics has passed AiG by - evidence of common descent is observable in the genes (ERVs etc...).

    Ad Hom aside, that still makes an inference/assumption then. To postulate that because genes mutate means that humans have ape ancestry. Its whole hardily misleading and a false assumption.


    Obvious strawman is a strawman. Ignoring the point that under modern taxonomic classification we are apes, that's not the posulation. The postulation would go something more like "if humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor we would expect to find certain similaries within the genome of each" (obviously it'd be far more specific citing which similarities and exactly where you'd expect to find them on the genome). You could then test the hypothesis by comparing the genomes

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dan +†+ said...

    Dead,

    Argument 9: Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

    >>This is geology not evolution - Red Herring number 4. Regardless, it's not just rocks that show the age of the earth.

    I almost would agree with you if it were not the fact that evolution NEEDS millions of years to work or be sensible.


    Bullshit Dan, the process of evolution can be directly observed in populations of short lived creatures.

    Without the evidence for an old earth/universe then evolution shrivels up and dies.

    Bzzzt! wrong. Even you require 'micro'evolution to occur, or are you going to regale us with an explanation of how Noah managed to get several examples of each and every one of the millions of extant species aboard a pathetically inadequate marine vessel?

    They, geology and evolution, must be harmonious in their findings.

    Why? as I pointed out above, evolution does not demand geological timescales to occur, neither does geology require evolution to be true in order for rocks to be dated as they are.

    They are definitely linked as the Paradigm.

    Your paranoia is showing ... is the New World Order responsible for this Paradigm?

    Your argument fails.

    What argument? I pointed out a Red Herring, you failed to show it wasn't. Any chance you could debunk the other arguments for an old universe some presented here

    ReplyDelete
  50. Dan +†+ said...

    Dead,

    Argument 10: Mutations drive evolution

    >>How schizophrenic can you be? You happily acknowledge mutations occur, then claim (without any evidence to back up the assertion) that those mutations cannot generate evolutionary change before acknowledging that mutations could cause beetles on a windy island may lose their wings as it's beneficial.

    This is getting beyond my pay grade but is "beetles on a windy island losing wings" the same as beetles on a scarce island gaining wings?


    Yes, they would both be examples of mutations.

    There is a huge difference to me.

    How? They are both mutations, no?

    I am sure many species would benefit from gaining flight. Imagine a flying gazelle.

    I'm sure they would but what has this got to do with mutation being an important mechanism in evolution?

    But that just is not the case.

    What is not the case? observable mutations or flying gazelles?

    Again, these are mere assumptions, and projections, that are unfounded.

    What assumptions and projections are you talking about? you seem to have gone off on a complete tangent to the original point.

    >>What barrier is there that stops accumulated mutations making 2 populations sufficiently distinct that they can no longer breed and become 2 separate species?

    Now you are introducing something entirely different? Talk about strawman/ red herring #X. From what evidence, read assumptions, do you conclude this?


    I'm not the one who isists on the delineation between micro and macro evolution. Maybe you can explain why you insist on the distinction and wht you see is the barrier that prevents micro becoming macro.

    You said, accumulated mutations making 2 populations sufficiently distinct that they can no longer breed and become 2 separate species.

    Are you claiming that people will be so different, races (read racist), that we can no longer bread with one another? Example, someday whites will not be able to bread with blacks? That we will become separate species? That is what you, and Hitler, are postulating here.

    Wow. Hitler Youth, coming to town near you.


    Godwin's Law I win by a TKO...

    To respond to your ridiculous reductio ad Hitlerum though. I wasn't necessarily taking about homo sapiens - it's almost impossible for modern humans to become so isolated that genetic divergence would prevent them breeding with other human populations - however, it's a fairly simple concept to imagine. Thought experiment: we get space travel to a point whereby we can travel to, and colonise, another planet. The population on the colonised planet will then follow a slightly different evolutionary path from those that remain on Earth, dependent upon the environmental factors they experience. Mutation will continue on both planets and there may come a point when colonists can no longer breed successfully with their human counterparts - speciation has occurred.

    For an actual example of genetic divergence see here

    Maybe we can identify and eradicate that pesky "Christian Gene" huh?

    I'm highly doubtful that there's a specific gene that determines Christianity and, even if there was, I would be completely opposed to any plan to 'eradicate' it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. One other point.

    I am sure many species would benefit from gaining flight. Imagine a flying gazelle.

    While that almost sounds like logic, simple physics tells you it won't happen. It's a little feature called the "square-cube law" (as objects increase in size, mass increases by the cube of the multiplier but the surface area only increases by the square of the multiplier - this assumes that the density doesn't increase).

    In aerodynamics, this indicates that the wingspan has to increase proportionally to the mass, not the surface area. (Mechanically, this can be overcome by thrust - not so biologically.)

    What this means is, a flying creature has to start out small, and gradually evolve (yup, there it is) into a larger creature - through simple selection, a slightly larger creature with a much larger wingspan is born, and breeds, and becomes the dominant genetic selection.

    Relatively few animals evolved flight as their primary means of motivation, simply because it isn't as efficient from an energy standpoint. And even fewer become large fliers, because of the mass-energy tradeoff.

    (Sorry. Thus ends your pedantic aside - big words, but a grossly simplified explanation.)

    ReplyDelete
  52. Dread,

    >> As for misleading - any chance of a definition of 'kind'.

    Don't we first need to nail down the term of speciation? "It is clear that species concepts vary radically depending on their purpose" (ICR)

    But obviously, and logically, there are no smoke and mirrors, like speciation. A lion is a lion kind, an elephant is an elephant kind, mammoths fit into the elephant kind and cannot be confused into the lion kind. Dogs are a wolf kind. Humans are certainly not a ape kind, but a human kind. Unlike evolution speciation, we cannot confuse a baby boy kind with a cow kind, or a fish kind. (hyperbole obvious)

    Like AIG pointed out "If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries. Darwin also recognized the problem. He finally ended by denying the reality of species."

    “Actually,” concludes Gould, “the existence of distinct species was quite consistent with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian era.” I would simply like to add that the evidence is also quite consistent with the creationist tenets of the present post-neo-Darwinian era. In Darwin’s time, as well as the present, “creation” seems to be the more logical inference from our observations.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dread,

    >>. The postulation would go something more like "if humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor we would expect to find certain similaries within the genome of each" (obviously it'd be far more specific citing which similarities and exactly where you'd expect to find them on the genome). You could then test the hypothesis by comparing the genomes

    How about moving the goalposts in a short few years. "The human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp’s as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken’s." (ICR)

    ReplyDelete
  54. Oh and Dead,

    Godwin's law touché. Well played. Never heard of that one before. Its a learning blog to boot. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Dan +†+ said...

    Dread,

    >> As for misleading - any chance of a definition of 'kind'.

    Don't we first need to nail down the term of speciation? "It is clear that species concepts vary radically depending on their purpose" (ICR)


    Already done

    But obviously, and logically, there are no smoke and mirrors, like speciation. A lion is a lion kind,

    So a 'kind' is at the species level?

    an elephant is an elephant kind, mammoths fit into the elephant kind and cannot be confused into the lion kind.

    and now it's at genus level?

    Dogs are a wolf kind.

    Now you don't seem sure whether is species, genus or family level? What about foxes, jackals and coyotes? are they part of the wolf 'kind' or are they separate?

    It seems almost as if 'kind' means whatever you want it to mean rather than having any real definition.

    Humans are certainly not a ape kind, but a human kind.

    We share the following characteristics with other primates, what, pray tell, is the defining distinction that you believe prevents us being part of the Hominoidea superfamily?

    * Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception)
    * Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears
    * Colour vision
    * Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects)
    * Grasping fingers aid in power grip
    * Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads on digits
    * Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones
    * Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars
    * Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex
    * Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire
    * Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes
    * Prolongation of postnatal life periods
    * Reduced litter size—usually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young)
    * Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest
    * Complicated social organization

    Remember is was the creationist Linnaeus who originally classified humans as primates.

    cont'd...

    ReplyDelete
  56. cont'd...

    Unlike evolution speciation, we cannot confuse a baby boy kind with a cow kind, or a fish kind. (hyperbole obvious)

    Hyperbole indeed as you're now conflating evolution and taxonomy to build a strawman you can beat with impunity ... for shame.

    Like AIG pointed out "If all life forms have been produced by gradual expansion through selected mutations from a small beginning gene pool, organisms really should just grade into one another without distinct boundaries.

    Which is pretty much exactly what we see in nature - you can find examples which straddle every dividing line between one family/genus/species and another.

    Darwin also recognized the problem. He finally ended by denying the reality of species."

    Lol, Darwin merely recognised the difficulty of classifying animals.
    From the wiki article on Species

    Darwin concluded that species are what they appear to be: ideas, which are provisionally useful for naming groups of interacting individuals. "I look at the term species", he wrote, "as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other ... It does not essentially differ from the word variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, and for convenience sake."

    “Actually,” concludes Gould, “the existence of distinct species was quite consistent with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian era.” I would simply like to add that the evidence is also quite consistent with the creationist tenets of the present post-neo-Darwinian era. In Darwin’s time, as well as the present, “creation” seems to be the more logical inference from our observations.

    Oh dear, quote mining for Jesus again - and one that was exposed as long ago as 1984 no less. The TalkOrigins page deals with this in detail in "Quote #3.1".

    ReplyDelete
  57. Dan +†+ said...

    Dread,

    >>. The postulation would go something more like "if humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor we would expect to find certain similaries within the genome of each" (obviously it'd be far more specific citing which similarities and exactly where you'd expect to find them on the genome). You could then test the hypothesis by comparing the genomes

    How about moving the goalposts in a short few years. "The human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp’s as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken’s." (ICR)


    I can see why you'd want to move the goalposts but it does you no good and seeing as you bought up chromosomes how about you explain Human Chromosome 2?

    ReplyDelete
  58. freddies_dead,

    Just out of curiosity, to which "Fred" do you refer?

    ReplyDelete
  59. The one of Curtis Mayfield fame (although I first heard the song covered by Fishbone).

    ReplyDelete
  60. We're all built up with progress
    But sometimes I must confess
    We can deal with rockets and dreams
    But reality, what does it mean
    Ain't nothing said
    'Cause freddies dead

    Something science cannot answer but the Bible can. So, Freddie may be spiritually dead but he will never die. Eternity is a long time to reflect the discussions made. Choose wisely. (Proverbs 9:10)

    ReplyDelete
  61. Pimpin' ain't easy. (Ezekial 23:20)

    ReplyDelete
  62. My faith is pure and my pimp hand is strong.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Don't be misled
    Just think of Fred

    ReplyDelete
  64. i think id take ToE as credible not because its sacred or anything but it has stood up against about a century or so of vicious scrutiny of other credible scientists that doesn't mean i'm not open to the belief of god(s) i am but if i'm going to put my whole trust in an entity then i must be sure for example this whole believe in me or perish in hell thing the christian god seems to have is not looking worthy of worship to me why is god so (lack of a better word) insecure? why is he against every other diety that (some of which)have been around a lot longer that moses or jesus christ and how do we as feeble humans know the christian god is the true god? to quote homer simpson "suppose we've chosen the wrong god every time we go to church we're just making him madder" and then theres the morality of ther bible are there specific versus that speaks out against spousal rape? pedofilia? because sposal rape wasn't consodered a crime until late 20th century and im not sure about rape but it wasn't a crime for a very long time in history mostly due to the attitude that women must obey their husbands hmm.......sounds familiar in fact that whole idea pretty much lead to the suppression of women in general and people wonder why feminists "rebelled" id certainly rebel too if the only thing i was thought to be good for was cooking cleaning and being a servant to my husband (50's 60's attitude) not to mention the whole thall shalt not kill thing being broken all the in the bible (killing of so called sinning towns)i thought it was he who is without sin casteth the first stone and do unto others as you would have done to you aloth of fundementals always seem to ignore them maybe it should have been thou shalt not kill....unless people who "god" deems wicked then kill them kill them all!!!

    ReplyDelete
  65. I dont even know where to start,
    Firstly I dont understand why people cant be Christians and believe in evolution. The first testement shouldnt be taken in the most part literally anyway, only fundamentalists do. So why cant you accept that maybe if there is a God, that this is his/her plan was to create an ever changing interesting world throughthe mechanism of evoultion

    Why also do people find it so insulting to beleive that yes we are very closly related to apes? We are not so special as you think. I am studying biology at university in partiular genetics and when looking at a chimps genome and a humans we could even be considered subspeices due to such similarity between the chromosomes.Only chromomes 4 and 17 are very different. Just as you would consider birds of different species part of the same class (aves) you would consider humans to be in the same class and order as chimps and the other great apes (Mammalia, Primates).

    We also did not evolve from apes but from a common ancestor, and changes that lead to differentiation could be as follows: chance events eg. population was separated, which lead to different selecion pressures due to different environment. Which resulted in certain traits being selected for due to them being more adapted to the envrionment, therefore increasing fitness (greater reproductive success). Over long periods of time the isolation of both populations would lead to great enough differences that the two populations would not be able to reprduce viable offspring and there you go, two different species.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Samslight,

    >>So why cant you accept that maybe if there is a God, that this is his/her plan was to create an ever changing interesting world through the mechanism of evoultion

    Where is that stated in the Bible, or is this a bare assertion?

    Look in Hosea 1:1, see the time line, the Bible talks about specific and exacting historical events with details of surroundings and time frame.

    The principle point here is that God communicated through prophets and was specific about the details. God inspired the Bible and we know we should take it as truth and it is written plainly as a historical narrative.

    God was specific about how long it took to make things in Genesis and restated it in Exodus 20:11

    Nevertheless, Samslight. How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Excellent list of strawmen, a 100 level logic course would love a chance to rip that list apart.

    Everyone should join me in celebrating Blasphemy Day over at Untitled Vanity Project, I'll be doing Blasphemy themed posts all day long!

    ~Rhaco

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>