I can barely even begin to list all the logical and scientific fallacies they claim are conclusive arguments for their belief. Revealing these flaws is like trying to teach toddlers algebra. They just do not get it or refuse to see.
Well, look who’s back. This is the creationist fool that refuses to debate me because I’m “arrogant.” Yet you’re claiming to find all these fallacies when regarding evolution. If there are so many fallacies, why not list them? Try your hand at “teach[ing] toddlers algebra.”
Correlation does not equal causation. Similarities in design does not necessitate the same evolutionary origin. It just as easily suggests a singular Intelligent Designer. It’s absolutely telling that some of the “strongest” “evidences” for evolution rely on this fallacy.
Correlation doesn’t imply causation. That’s the only fallacy I see you name. You’re correct though. Similarities don’t imply an evolutionary origin. But that’s not what we go by.
The fossil record, for example, gives us good examples of transitional forms. The fossil record for whales is a great example. Let’s take a look!
Design can’t explain that. Creationism can’t explain that. The fossil record for horses and humans are pretty good as well. Visit a museum! Watch a video! Read a book or a magazine! Try this link! Step away from creationist websites for a day in your life and learn something. And may I remind you, there are Christians who now accept evolution. You don’t have to be a creationist to be Christian. If you ever accept evolution, we’ll have a debate of a different sort, but thankfully, that’s another discussion.
Apart from the fossil record, genetics bolsters the case for evolution. Via genetics, we know that 4-8% of our DNA is Neanderthal DNA. Not only does that demonstrate speciation, but it shows that we interbred with them; it also shows that another type of human once existed. H.neaderthalensis isn’t alone however. There are many other human relatives in the fossil record (i.e. h.egaster, h.erectus, australopithecus, h.floresiensis). Creationist attempts to classify these fossils have been confused to say the least. Creationists can’t decide which are human, which are ape, and which are monkey. Why the confusion? Because they’re not exactly human, ape or monkey. Each fossil shares ape-like and human-like attributes and thus, they are hard to classify from a creationist perspective. However, from an evolutionary perspective, it isn’t hard to classify them and reconstruct what they might have looked like. Also, we share 98.5% of our DNA with chimps, 96% with gorillas, and 97% with orangutans. How is that explained from a creationist’s perspective? Sure, god could have made all of us share a similar foundation, but why don’t we share 98.5% of our DNA with alpacas? Isn’t it strange that we share that percentage of DNA with animals that kind of look like us—with animals that have language potential and societies? Why would god make it seem like evolution is the case if it’s not the case? Why would he lay down so much just to fool us? Think critically and not religiously!
Biogeographical distribution also bolsters the case for evolution. Large mammals aren’t on islands, for example. There are particularities, but those are easily explained. For example, the Sumatran tiger is found in Sumatra (Indonesian islands)—islands that very recently broke off from the mainland. In any event, this discrepancy is hard to account for from a creationist perspective and no(!), flood geology doesn’t help your case. Flood geology is bunk! Georges Cuvier found that out the hard way. He tried his hand at proving it; he eventually ended with 27 or so global flood accounts. He concluded that such ad hoc explanations are ridiculous and that there was no global flood. Let’s get that quote you refused to read before!
Indeed, Cuvier himself was staunchly against the evolutionary ideas of his colleague Lamarck and tried to use the fossil record against him. Cuvier pointed to mummified animals recovered from the Egyptian tombs (recently robbed by Napoleon’s soldiers). These mummified cats and ibises had not changed since the time of the ancient Egyptians. To Cuvier, this was proof that life was not constantly changing and evolving, as Lamarck had suggested. As the most prominent man in French science, Cuvier also had to avoid the speculative approaches of Geoffroy and Lamarck. Instead, he proposed his own solution to the dilemma. The layers of rock with fossils of extinct animals represented a dark, dangerous period before the Creation and Flood of Genesis (the antediluvian period, Latin for “before the Flood”) not described in the Bible. God had created and destroyed these earlier antediluvian worlds before the Genesis record begins. This solution was not too heretical for the time; it allowed Cuvier to recognize that the rock record was full of fossils of extinct organisms that could not have made it to Noah’s ark and that were certainly not alive today.
Before we continue, I want you to notice Cuvier’s contortions. He preferred to suggest that god created and destroyed other antediluvian worlds rather than accepting the facts; in other words, he preferred to suggest that his perfect god employed a system of trial and error! Quite contradictory. Let us continue:
Other geologists and paleontologists followed Cuvier’s lead and tried to describe each layer with its distinctive fossils as evidence of yet another Creation and Flood event not mentioned in the Bible. In 1842, Alcide d’Orbigny began describing the Jurassic fossils from the southwestern French Alps and soon recognized 10 different stages, each of which he interpreted as a separate non-Biblical creation and flood. As the work continued, it became more and more complicated until 27 separate creations and floods were recognized, which distorted the Biblical account out of shape. By this time, European geologists finally began to admit that the sequence of fossils was too long and complex to fit it with Genesis at all. They abandoned the attempt to reconcile it with the Bible. Once again, however, these were devout men who did not doubt the Bible and were certainly not interested in shuffling the sequence of fossils to prove Darwinian evolution (an idea still not published at this point). They simply did not see how the Bible could explain the rock record as it was then understood.
Prothero, Donald. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, p. 56-57. New York: Columbia University Press, 2007. Print.
Notice, Prothero exposes the creationist lie that paleontologists shuffle fossils and ignore anomalies. They don’t. Creationism is simply propaganda. Ultimately, the evidence for evolution does not rely on the fallacy of correlation implies causation. Know the evidence!
Evidences that can also be explained by the opposing viewpoint do not contribute to your theory.
Explain the fossil record, biogeographical distribution, genetics, atavisms, vestigial organs, and dead genes from a creationist’s perspective. Creationism doesn’t give an account of the evidence. I know what your websites say and in the past, I’ve refuted them thoroughly. You, like the coward that you are, stuck your ponytail between your thighs and ran for the hills. Remember?
Lack of ability to observe the process means a lack of scientific testability. Lack of testability means faith is involved.
Nope! We can still falsify evolution.
Some paleontologists would kill for such an anomaly. They would be immortalized by winning a Nobel Prize. Scientists aren’t afraid of paradigm shifts. When they occur, they embrace them. Thus, there’s no faith involved. It is curious though; you seem to recognize the inherent weakness of faith. That is why you, like many of your fellow Christians, attempt to equate science with faith. Sub-consciously or perhaps consciously, you understand science’s superiority to faith and thus, you attempt to undermine its superiority with this curious conflation.
Having a substance-less “response” (basically “Nuh-uh!”) to creationist claims does not put the ball back in our court.
I put the ball in your court. You threw in out of bounds and ran. Give me all your claims and I’ll refute them. Then I’ll teach you. If you stop being an obdurate fool, you can know that side of me. However, the harder your head becomes, the harder I’ll hit it.
The theory of evolution contributes nothing to the ability to study biology the way it is. Further proving the point is the ability for creationists to be just as capable biologists and scientists.
Wrong! Vaccinations have an evolutionary basis. The field of medicine employs knowledge of evolution. Your scientific illiteracy is quite the problem. That’s precisely why your claims are so nonsensical.
Telling stories about how something might feasibly have happened in your theory is not evidence of its occurrence or evidence of the truth.
Scientists, in all disciplines, make tentative suggestions. These aren’t stories like the Gospels. They eventually become testable hypotheses. Every hypothesis begins with a tentative suggestion. That’s how science works.
Observing a rate of occurrence now and extrapolating that far, far backwards is not necessarily accurate or scientific. There are too many possible variables at stake.
Like what? What variables do you propose? If you have none, stop making empty statements. On falsification, the theory of evolution stands strong. Furthermore, there’s nothing wrong with retrodictions. The Big Bang was a retrodiction before WMAP and Planck established the existence of the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background). We can extrapolate as far as we like. It’s all in the methods and instruments used to do so. That’s how science works.
Small variations do not necessitate big variations. A change in information does not prove an increase in information.
In other words, micro- doesn’t lead to macro-evolution. If that’s the case, what mechanism stops micro-evolution from becoming macro-evolution? What stops small variations from becoming big ones? Empty statements get you no where. It’s all hot air.
Evolution that rejects intelligent design cannot honestly shy away from the question of the origin of the universe. If intelligent design is decidedly rejected, evolution receives the burden of proof regarding how something un-intelligently came from nothing. “We don’t know; we’re working on it, but I refuse to consider the possibility of intelligent design,” proves bias and unreliability of the scientist supposedly neutrally seeking truth.
Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology. Cosmology has answers to the origins of the universe, but I’m afraid if I get into that, I’ll give you a headache. My primary blog focuses heavily on cosmology. Give it a follow; read the articles and learn. The Big Bang has no theological implications. Even Lemaitre recognized that and he was a Catholic!
[T]he first person to propose a Big Bang was a Belgian priest and physicist named Georges Lemaitre. Lemaitre was a remarkable combination of proficiencies. He started his studies as an engineer, was a decorated artilleryman in World War I, and then switched to mathematics while studying for the priesthood in the early 1920s. He then moved on to cosmology, studying first with the famous British astrophysicist Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington before moving on to Harvard and eventually receiving a second doctorate, in physics from MIT.
In 1927, before receiving his second doctorate, Lemaitre had actually solved Einstein’s equations for general relativity and demonstrated that the theory predicts a nonstatic universe and in fact suggests that the universe we live in is expanding. The notion seemed so outrageous that Einstein himself colorfully objected with the statement “Your math is correct, but your physics is abominable.”
Nevertheless, Lemaitre powered onward, and in 1930 he further proposed that our expanding universe actually began as an infinitesimal point, which he called the “Primeval Atom” and that this beginning represented, in an allusion to Genesis perhaps, a “Day with No Yesterday.”
Thus, the Big Bang, which Pope Pius so heralded, had first been proposed by a priest. One might have thought that Lemaitre would have been thrilled with this papal validation, but he had already dispensed in his own mind with the notion that this scientific theory had theological consequences and had ultimately removed a paragraph in the draft of his 1931 paper on the Big Bang remarking on this issue.
Lemaitre in fact later voiced his objection to the pope’s 1951 claimed proof of Genesis via the Big Bang (not least because he realized that if his theory was later proved incorrect, then the Roman Catholic claims for Genesis might be contested). By this time, he had been elected to the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy, later becoming its president. As he put it, “As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question.” The pope never again brought up the topic in public.
Krauss, Lawrence. A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing. 1st ed. New York, NY: Free Press, 2012. 4-5. Print.
The multiverse is starting to garner tentative evidence (i.e. dark flow; the cold spot on the CMB data). Want to know more? Just ask! I’m here to guide you so that you may learn, but you have to honestly want that. In any case, ID has nothing to do with cosmology. Apologists say that god created the universe; they say that he fine-tuned it, but this has nothing to do with ID. Seems you don’t even know what ID actually is. How can you not know what your own pet theory says? Bias in science is filtered out by the scientific method and by paradigm shifts. Bias in science doesn’t survive for too long. Remember Piltdown man!? Wasn’t creationists who figured out it was a biased fraud; it was paleontologists! That’s how science works.
If the Big Bang occurred, the chances of disorder randomly causing the universe around us (and then the chances of life prevailing without any interrupt, e.g. death or sterility, of the only living creature able to continue life) are so infinitesimally small, it is a statistical impossibility multiplied astronomically. And does the universe keep trying until it gets it right? Can the mass of somethings return to nothingness and try to “bang” again until it gets something that sticks?
This is a colloquial version of the Hoyle’s Fallacy. Might as well invoke the junkyard tornado. Your questions at the end are ambiguous. I don’t even know what you’re trying to say. The universe will eventually end in a Big Rip or Big Freeze and all that will remain, according to modern cosmology, is the vacuum of space. That’s pretty much nothingness. In any case, “I don’t understand; therefore god” isn’t an argument. That’s an argument from ignorance. That’s a fallacy. That’s illogical. What you need is proper education. Thankfully, like I said, I can guide you there. Create some value for yourself because what you know now is of no value.