Forums → WEPR → Evolution
| 779 | 172624 |
Well a lot of people have been telling me evolution is real. They give me the most craziest surreal 'facts'. Has anyone discovered any fish with legs? Any humans with gills or fins? If you put all the pieces of a watch into you're pocket and shake it around for trillions of years, will it ever become a watch? Is there but one possibility? Or if you completely dismantle a chicken and a fish, and put it into a box, shaking it around for trillions of years. Will it ever become a fish with wings? or a chicken with fins? :l
- 779 Replies
but you can feel him.
How can you be certain that it's not Satan's charming touch gently guiding you to a false religion?
Wait, we have no proof of evolution either.
At least you've admitted that there is no proof of God, not even religious texts. Technically your statement also means that "feeling" isn't proof.
What's more realistic-
Evolution. The belief that things keep evolving from nothing it seems and has some issues with the theory or-
See, there are names for you stupid arguments.
1) "Excluded Middle" fallacy - You're assuming it's an either or situation. Either evolution is right, or creationism is. This is an obvious and stupid one.
2) "Burden Of Proof" fallacy - You're assuming because evidence hasn't been discovered, the statement is wrong. This is not true, and the reason it is a problem is that you keep acting like you have priority so if we can't prove our side and you can't prove yours, you win.
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) "Argument By Question" and "Argument By Emotive Language" and "Argument by Rhetorical Question" and "Reductive" Fallacy and "Argument By Dismissal" and "Euphemism" fallacy - You're trying (not to mention failing) to make one side look stupid by use of specific words and questions, but not actually refuting the other side's arguments. You're also trying to ask a question that will force the other side into a specific answer. (you did all 5 of these in your most recent post)
9) "Argument By Repetition" - I'm not even sure you're doing this one on purpose, but you're doing it. You've repeated defeated arguments over and over again, as if it's going to persuade us they're correct.
10) "Argument By Selective Observation" - You haven't done this much in this thread, but it's still mention worthy. Basically you only choose to see one side of something. Like saying "the bible preaches goodness" but ignoring how many terrible things it teaches.
11) "Argument By Selective Reading" - I literally haven't read a post of yours where you haven't done this. You choose only one argument, usually the weakest, and act as if it's their only argument.
12) "Error Of Fact" fallacy - Saying nobody knows a certain fact when it's not true. People have asked for the connection in evolution between two animals before, and just because nobody knew the connection doesn't mean nobody in the world does. This also relates back to the "burden of proof" fallacy.
13) "Argument From Personal Astonishment" - You also did this in your post. You can't understand how something can be correct, so therefore it isn't correct.
14) "Changing The Subject" fallacy - This is self explanatory and you do this often too.
15) "Least Plausible Hypothesis" fallacy - This is also self explanatory. You're post doesn't exactly fit this, but it's dead close.
16) "Appeal To Complexity" - Since you don't get it nobody does. Obviously false.
17) "Common Sense" fallacy - You did this in your most recent post too. You're essentially telling people to use common sense. The fallacy here is that if it was common sense, you wouldn't need a follow up statement. But you have a follow up statement (the part explaining creationism), so if you need to explain one possible scenario, that scenario isn't common sense.
18) "Argument By Laziness" - Doesn't fully apply here, but you have proven you don't fully understand evolution. You're forming an opinion without being fully informed about both sides.
Now I know you're going to make another "Argument By Selective Reading", and i've essentially wasted my time making this post, but I'm just going to keep this as a record so i can keep pointing out the fallacies every time you make them.
Ok, name one good argument made by evolutionists.
What about stupid arguments like 1 out of a 18,000 chance that dna letters would line up correctly to create life.
What about stupid arguments like 1 out of a 18,000 chance that dna letters would line up correctly to create life.
What about how we've gone over this?
I don't even care where you're getting your failtistic from, we can observe what DNA is today and see that they are that way, which means that they formed that way. It's irrelevant how many ways it -could- have formed other than for academic thought because how it is, is how it turned out.
Also, DNA didn't start life. There was no DNA at the at the start, that came later.
evolutionists.
Saying "evolutionist" is like saying "gravitationist."
One good argument is this - We have a butt load of fossils and can date them within approximate ranges and see that as time passes they got more complex and can link the changes to see the progression of this increase in complexity. Regardless of whether or not -you- accept this doesn't impact it's validity in the slightest.
Ok, name one good argument made by evolutionists.
What about stupid arguments like 1 out of a 18,000 chance that dna letters would line up correctly to create life.
I agree this is a stupid argument, one that is often made by creationists, not those who study evolution. I've already been over how using odds in situations like this just don't work.
For further reading on this matter I refer you to section EB3b on the evolution bomb.
One good argument is this - We have a butt load of fossils and can date them within approximate ranges and see that as time passes they got more complex and can link the changes to see the progression of this increase in complexity. Regardless of whether or not -you- accept this doesn't impact it's validity in the slightest.
We don't even need the fossils as evidence. By simply looking at our genetics we can trace inheritance and from this we can link the evolutionary lineages.
Facts Of Evolution: Retroviruses And Pseudogenes
Ok, name one good argument made by evolutionists.
You can't justify your actions with someone else's, no matter how badly you do it.
Is it possible for endogenous retroviruses to not be passed on, or be taken out?
I would imagine it's possible on an individual organism, but whenever reproduction would occur it would be put back in there, right? Which would make it virtually impossible for a species to have decedents without those DNA sequences unless a group was isolated and had them removed.
Which would make it virtually impossible for a species to have decedents without those DNA sequences unless a group was isolated and had them removed.
Pretty much and by using those changes in the gnome we can trace the lineages as we evolve. So as exampled in the video. We fine a change in the gnome resulting from one of these retroviruses and since we find that same change in the same spot in both us and chimps we can know just by that, that we share a common ancestry. We can then track that further to where we no longer find that change, meaning the descendants of that species split before the group was infected.
I think it's a pretty freaky chance that the universe could be created by a few atoms swirling around in a void, and that the perfect planet such as earth could be spewed out from a giant ball of fire, and that life could evolve into the complex, concious form it is today-but that does'nt mean I don't beleive in evolotution or the big bang theaory.
I think it's a pretty freaky chance that the universe could be created by a few atoms swirling around in a void,
It wasn't just a few atoms in a void, it was a singularity made up of everything in the universe we see. It was just really densely packed into one spot, which is where we get the term primordial atom from.
and that the perfect planet such as earth could be spewed out from a giant ball of fire,
I wouldn't call Earth perfect. Also judging by the position of planets we are beginning to find in other solar systems Earth might not even be all that unique. Which in a way I find rather amazing in itself for this time.
and that life could evolve into the complex, concious form it is today
Unfortunately we really don't have any frame of reference to work from to determine just how fantastic or mundane this is beyond planet. Which over all is just a sample size of 1.
There's nothing that I can add in defense of evolution. You guys have said it all. I do want to say that I'm a Christian and believe wholeheartedly in evolution. There's too much evidence to prove that it exists to deny it.
Evolution: Proven. Creationism: Not Proven. In other words, scientists have the facts and try making conclusions from them while creationists have the conclusions and try finding facts to support them. Which they don't have.
Creationism: Not Proven.
Way more than that.
1) Creationism is highly illogical.
2) There's thousands of creation myths which all differ from something begetting itself to splitting in two to spontaneous appearance to dirt coming alive to a guiding hand. They are just stories from people who had no other way to explain their world.
3) We have disproven the literal interpretation of all of these. All that remains are for people to try and use random metaphors that don't really work to try and keep their dying faith alive.
I'll stroll off from the thread that was previously locked before I go into the main discussion, if you don't mind.
Hey, Avorne, highfire--what you guys are doing is playing exactly into his hand and not arguing against what his points actually are. You're assigning certainty to what's induction in the end, and you're more or less demonstrating his point
Demonstrating which one? To any third party viewer they likely just saw what's supposed to be his point debunked. Someone who is sided with us makes it seem more or less as if the same thing.
What is probably the only issue (that is still even then at fault to illogical thinking) is the observers who side with the guy and think "Ha, they completely don't know where he's getting at".
Here's the thing -- if you're getting at somewhere, then you do it in an open manner because I'm not going to prance about and spend my time tackling EVERY issue that could be related to what only you mention, thus spawning dozens more arguments that you could possibly use even if I just disproved them.
You have a point - you bring it forward. If he was in fact leading up to something else then he is doing it wrong, literally wrong. Fighting what is certainly there (the points he is bringing up) will serve the argument that he doesn't know what he's talking about, which is very evident.
Only if someone decided to kick off could he spawn a logically fallacious argument, and aside from that, there is perfectly nothing wrong with the response made.
I see your point -- but in a debating situation if the opposition can't be honest and if I can't be honest (which I am being honest) then it is indeed just an indication of one's own fear, lack of knowledge and / or stupidity. It shows that the others are not willing to actually find a conclusion that does not side with their beliefs, which betrays the entire point of a real debate.
The problem is that the big bang is answering the wrong question... it answers 'how.' It doesn't answer 'why.'
And that is how religion was created, as people did not have a way of explaining their existence and since they were sentient beyond that of survival (as explained by society and entertainment) they designed religion.
It's logically supported, and I believe knowing some neuroscience could help. Remember the thread about Athene's Theory of Everything? Try this segment.
There is a beginning of this universe, but the big bang fails to answer why.
And because it has not, or even can not answer why, your justified in believing in religion? Or perhaps, because it can't explain why, is its validity compromised?
This is where I have to ask where you are getting at. Making that statement is pointless otherwise.
here's a link for some scientific evidence on creation If you're really looking for answers or a rebuttal, read that
I take it you at least read it before linking it. I'm not going to what could easily be squandering time when the probability of it being less logical than current theories (in order to sustain belief) is high and especially where many of these "scientific" links are:
1) Logically fallacious;
2) Logically void and,
3) Targeted more against other beliefs than supporting its own (perhaps because it can't?)
And with that, it is than only fair for me to tell you that I am not certain of the validity of the video(s) I linked you previously. However, I can at least see how it makes sense -- it is after all, how our brains work, for the most part.
if you don't, then you're just on here to troll, and you're not worth my time.
I provided the reasons. Unless there is something substantial and preferably irrefutable (as opposed to questionable or 'a lie' at first glance) in what you linked, I don't care.
Also, I much appreciate that you set such assumptions for people who talk about this and can't be bothered reading that, it really shows what lengths you go to to make your point the correct one.
No, instead of being frivolous I'll deter from these primarily ludicrous "arguments" and go into some points raised in the thread I'm posting this in, itself.
Um. I guess the last post for Page 73 sums up what I can say (bar the Christian part).
Although my real name is Christopher -- which means "Christ-bearer", so I guess that bares some truth aha.
- H
Demonstrating which one? To any third party viewer they likely just saw what's supposed to be his point debunked. Someone who is sided with us makes it seem more or less as if the same thing.
You're just demonstrating your own lack of understanding. His issue was with the inductive nature of science, and he even said that he was amused by all the statements of certainty where certainty does not exist. I was arguing against his point because he did have some stuff wrong, but not the stuff you were attacking. You guys were strawmanning him.
You have a point - you bring it forward. If he was in fact leading up to something else then he is doing it wrong, literally wrong. Fighting what is certainly there (the points he is bringing up) will serve the argument that he doesn't know what he's talking about, which is very evident.
He was being exceptionally clear. You just aren't distinguishing between what he's actually saying and what you're fallaciously arguing against.
You must be logged in to post a reply!