Jump to content


Photo

The macroevolution equivocation


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#101 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 June 2010 - 08:16 PM

Once again, you are incorrect. It seems you are attempting to confuse “Blind” faith, and faith. They are two very different things.


Yes, but neither require evidential support.

Are you referring to the historical accounts and evidences of the eye witnesses of one Jesus of Nazareth, and the acts of His apostles?  Once again, you would be incorrect. But, if you want to argue that, you’ll need to go to:
http://www.evolution...topic=1957&st=0


As I've said that thread just collects evidence of early Christians. I can't really challenge folk on such issues as it challenges their most cherished beliefs.

BTW I visited Israel in 2007 and visited quite a few of the West Bank towns, would be interested in chatting with anyone else who's been there.

The skull formation of a “fully formed” skull was never in question Tommy, so you may not wish to side step the scant skeletal evidence for Lucy (especially the skull) with this type of misdirection. This is what’s known as the Argumentum Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy (which is a type of non sequitur), and your irrelevant subject (a red herring) being interjected into the conversation to divert attention away from the main issue has been exposed.

"Those that depend upon the assumption of the original point and upon stating as the cause what is not the cause, are clearly shown to be cases of ignoratio elenchi through the definition thereof.."  Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations

View Post


I am not the Pope and so must look up latin phrases. I think my points on the skull are valid, how is that a red herring?

#102 PhilC

PhilC

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 632 posts
  • Age: 42
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 20 June 2010 - 02:29 AM

In the flow of conversation, this didn't get an answer, but I would be interested in getting a response.


The bones in your link are very informative.  The big bone on the right is unquestionably a left femur articulating with part of a pelvis and the sacrum (thing with holes in the middle).  The bones on each side are broken humeruses.  The big bones in the bottom left is a broken right tibia.  From these aggregate proportions one can deduce 1) this a primate/hominid, 2) a likely layout of the skeleton based on orthodox anatomical principles, 3) from details on the bones likely muscle coverage.  When compared with known skeleton-specimin correspondances the artist's impression is hardly improbable.


As I said, massive amounts of faith. I'm sure you can build a case for Nebraska Man too.



Okay, let's break this down (find where the evidence ends and the faith starts):

The big bone on the right is unquestionably a left femur articulating with part of a pelvis and the sacrum (thing with holes in the middle).  The bones on each side are broken humeruses.  The big bones in the bottom left is a broken right tibia.



Is this part right? Or is it faith to identify a left femur?


Also, Ron, I provided a link to where I was discussing the actual evidence, and I have started another about embryology. Of course as common sense tells me, and the rules of this board too, your time on this board is not your top prioiruty, but if you get chance it would be great to hear your comments on those too.

If you don't I can just claim another point for the evo's :P




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users