Jump to content


Photo

I'm In The Mood To Watch Evolutionists Squirm...


  • Please log in to reply
224 replies to this topic

#181 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 06:52 PM

Sorry for keeping you waiting Cata. Your argument is based on the assumption that homo sapiens is descended from homo sapiens. That is not the reality.

If you knew where homo sapiens actually came from, you would not be making the above argument.

HTH.

View Post


Actually reality confirms that humans come from humans. This is how it has ALWAYS been.

You and every other evolutionist in the world has absolutely failed to show that humans do not come from humans.

#182 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:11 PM

So, you say that my argument proving evolution wrong, is wrong, because evolution is right.
Definitely no circular reasoning in that...

And I fail to see how it is based on that. My argument's purpose is to prove evolution wrong. Does that make it any less right?

So far, you've tried to:
-go off topic
-declare Occam's razor
-ignore an argument because you think it's biased
-imply that creationists are uneducated
-ignore refutations to your explanation yet still claim it is correct
-use circular reasoning

View Post


Your argument is wrong because it contains a false premise. Other than that, it's fantasic, and why not submit it for publication?

#183 OldStyle Blues

OldStyle Blues

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:12 PM

Actually reality confirms that humans come from humans. This is how it has ALWAYS been.

Ok you've made the claim, please provide evidence to support this assertion.

You and every other evolutionist in the world has absolutely failed to show that humans do not come from humans.

You are incorrect.

One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.4 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils.

Posted Image Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.) (larger 76K JPG version)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(:lol: Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
© Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern Evidence

#184 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:14 PM

To get back on topic, the OP is an example of the argument from ignorance:

The two most common forms of the argument from ignorance, both fallacious, can be reduced to the following form:

    * Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
    * Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.

http://en.wikipedia...._from_ignorance

Even when discussing - or perhaps especially when discussing logical fallacies, one must read carefully to ensure that the "authority" is being accurate.

The history of the wiki article in question shows that it has been subject to a good deal of tampering in order to portray anti-theistic arguments as non-fallacious and pro-theistic as fallacious regardless of whether or not any actual fallacy can be demonstrated.

http://en.wikipedia....29&oldid=263666

Not far down, as part of the right column, is a "next edit" link. The entire history can be reviewed.

If one simply must consult atheists in search of one's recipes, I suggest
http://www.don-linds...ents.html#charm

They have links to more resources. Some may prefer

http://www.conservap...Logical_fallacy

A little common sense goes a long ways. You were born more logical than any "grand philosopher" would ever admit. Those who would abuse logic are not above tampering with the definitions, as anyone who cares to investigate will readily see.

The most conspicuous argument-from-ignorance relates to "vestigial" organs: "I don't know what it does, so it does nothing." Clearly it is not concerned at all about whether the fallacy monger knows what it does, and will continue doing what it does regardless.

You evolutionists are going to have a really hard time explaining this one, therefore goddidit

Is a logical fallacy.

View Post

I see you did a little shopping while you were at wiki. That one would be a straw man.

Perhaps you forget the evolutionist position: there is no evidence of design because everything that looks designed can be explained as the handiwork of the goddesses of evolutionism. If you are a member of the sects which believe that, the burden is all yours.

#185 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:19 PM

Your argument is wrong because it contains a false premise.

View Post


What premise? Stop wasting my time.

Oh, and Oldstyle, that is not evidence. That's called lining up dead animal's skulls in a way that you like. Nowhere near evidence.

#186 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:25 PM

What premise? Stop wasting my time.

View Post


I'm not wasting your time. Please try to remain calm and courteous, if you can.

The premise which is false is that mankind's ancestors all had forward-facing eyes. If you are not going to accept that, or at least research it from a non-creationist source, then please let me know now, so we can both go and do something more productive than have this same discussion repeatedly.

Thanks in advance.

#187 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:29 PM

This is not accurate. The creationist position is not that the configuration could not occur. The position is that evolutionists need to demonstrate that it could  occur by the means evolutionism claims it did - generally as the result of the mutation and selection goddesses.

Yes, and since we know that we are descended from fish-like creatures, and ultimately bacteria-like organisms, with tetrapods along the way, then the explanation I gave makes sense. It only doesn't make sense if you insist that goddidit.

View Post

How about an explanation for those of us who are not in the habit of reasoning in circles?

But thanks for acknowledging the error, even if you didn't correct it. ...I think. ...Maybe. You did say "yes", and you didn't dispute my assessment, at least.

It's hard to interpret exactly what you mean when you don't respond directly to anything. Is this a feature of some intentional strategy, or a by-product of the non-stop propagandizing policy?

#188 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:30 PM

Oh, and Oldstyle, that is not evidence. That's called lining up dead animal's skulls in a way that you like. Nowhere near evidence.

View Post


Wow, 13 year old boy takes on the Smithsonian!

Where's the popcorn?

#189 OldStyle Blues

OldStyle Blues

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:31 PM

Oh, and Oldstyle, that is not evidence.

Why is it not evidence? How does creationism explain this evidence from conventional science?

That's called lining up dead animal's skulls in a way that you like

There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things?

#190 JMcP

JMcP

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 79 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Scotland

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:33 PM

[quote name='CTD' date='Dec 20 2009, 07:29 PM']
Yes, and since we know that we are descended from fish-like creatures, and ultimately bacteria-like organisms, with tetrapods along the way, then the explanation I gave makes sense. It only doesn't make sense if you insist that goddidit.

View Post

[/quote]
How about an explanation for those of us who are not in the habit of reasoning in circles?

But thanks for acknowledging the error, even if you didn't correct it. ...I think. ...Maybe. You did say "yes", and you didn't dispute my assessment, at least.

It's hard to interpret exactly what you mean when you don't respond directly to anything. Is this a feature of some intentional strategy, or a by-product of the non-stop propagandizing policy?

View Post

[/quote]

I don't respond to many of your posts because most of the time I can't tell what they mean. This one included.

#191 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:39 PM

Yet your explanation has been refuted, and you are ignoring the refutations. Yet you still think it's true.

Just answer the refutations, stop wasting our time.
That is not my argument. Don't make be have to quote it. Again.


View Post

As we're dealing here with a surrogate rather than the author himself, we have to take into account the strong possibility that the "explanation" is beyond his own understanding. The author didn't write for clarity or even compliance with evodoctrine; but rather to obscure the lack of compliance inherent in the scenario. While that was being obscured, the rest of it became less clear than it otherwise would have been.

In any case, good luck holding them to topic.

#192 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:42 PM

There is no straw man.

View Post

There is a straw platoon in this thread. Not once have you accurately represented a creationist position.

#193 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:44 PM

The premise which is false is that mankind's ancestors all had forward-facing eyes. If you are not going to accept that, or at least research it from a non-creationist source, then please let me know now, so we can both go and do something more productive than have this same discussion repeatedly.

View Post



I never stated that. Doesn't matter if they did or not according to your belief. It has nothing to do with my argument. Let me repeat it for you:

Because the trochlea could not have evolved, and evolution states everything evolved, evolution is wrong.

evolution states that small mutations over time, can add new structures.

According to evolution, the trochlea was formed slowly by mutations that were beneficial and selected for.

However, it could not have evolved because the muscle would have to form through the sling, which would have no purpose until the muscle goes through it. However, the muscle would have to have gradually moved to its current location, as it would likely have formed touching the eye normally like the other muscles around. It would be detrimental to survival if the muscle was lengthened because it would be unable to contract as much as it could if it were shorter.


I've added in the blue to clarify, in case you need help.

Wow, 13 year old boy takes on the Smithsonian!

Lets add ad hominem to the list.

I'm not wasting your time.

With all the stuff you've done, it seems you are trying to waste time.

So far, you've tried to:
-go off topic
-declare Occam's razor
-ignore an argument because you think it's biased
-imply that creationists are uneducated
-ignore refutations to your explanation yet still claim it is correct
-use circular reasoning
-present a straw man
-present an ad hominem


Scott, right when you posted that I knew they'd bring up another red herring.

OldStyle Blues, stop derailing the thread.

#194 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:49 PM

Your argument is wrong because it contains a false premise. Other than that, it's fantasic, and why not submit it for publication?

View Post

:rolleyes:
Why not refute the argument? Hmmmmm?

False promises of false prizes from dishonest entities do not constitute an argument, in case any genius needs help with that one.

#195 OldStyle Blues

OldStyle Blues

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Age: 39
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:53 PM

Why not refute the argument? Hmmmmm?

Or you could show how your argument isn't a false premise.

False promises of false prizes from dishonest entities

What are dishonest entities and why are they dishonest?

#196 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:54 PM

I'm not wasting your time. Please try to remain calm and courteous, if you can.

The premise which is false is that mankind's ancestors all had forward-facing eyes. If you are not going to accept that, or at least research it from a non-creationist source, then please let me know now, so we can both go and do something more productive than have this same discussion repeatedly.

Thanks in advance.

View Post

That premise has never, ever been included in the argument. I've seen enough open deceit. I'm reporting this one.

#197 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:58 PM

Or you could show how your argument isn't a false premise. 


I did. And an argument is not a false premise. An argument can be based off one.
I suppose you don't even know what a false premise is.


What are dishonest entities and why are they dishonest?


Well, scientists have actually found red blood cells and intact tissue in a dinosaur bone. A creationist offered to pay all the costs necessary to carbon date the tissue. However, the scientists refused, and if I remember correctly, said they "didn't want to give ammo to Creationists."
There's an example of dishonesty in the scientific community. There have been more, such as heckel's false embryo drawings, and numerous "missing links" that have been proven to be hoaxes.

But, I think you are trying to bring this off topic again. So let's not continue on this.

#198 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 07:59 PM

Or you could show how your argument isn't a false premise. What are dishonest entities and why are they dishonest?

View Post


CTD has already shown that his argument is not on a false premise. You are denying the facts, again, again, and again... as usual.

#199 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 08:00 PM

Ok you've made the claim, please provide evidence to support this assertion.
You are incorrect.
Posted Image  Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.) (larger 76K JPG version)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(:rolleyes: Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
© Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern  Evidence

View Post


Lol this very same picture has already been shown as FICTIONAL in another thread. B)

#200 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 20 December 2009 - 08:01 PM

There is a straw platoon in this thread. Not once have you accurately represented a creationist position.

View Post


This is true, and all of their posts in this thread verify this.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users