Erroneous Studies By Evolutionists

[mike the wiz 1,210]

My response to my old mate, Phat, in his thread at EvC forum he linked this article:

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/06/29/418289762/don-t-believe-in-evolution-try-thinking-harder

 

Here is the forum he posted the article in, where you can read the responses from the evolutionists if it interests you.

 

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=17980

 

 

I will now analyze the article and it's fallacious content, most amusingly it tells us to, "think harder" if we don't accept evolution though below I have shown that the writer hasn't thought AT ALL. Lol. And seems to have ZERO knowledge of logical notation or critical thinking, and the importance it plays in these lame studies.

 

This shows the problem with probability-statistics. The relevance of the study is highly questionable, especially if the statistics seem tautological, such as, "being born in a religious country will make it likely you are religious". If you do not have 100% of the data, then it is 100% guaranteed that you will affirm-the-consequent INTUITIVELY. 

 

 

Phat's study: For decades we've known that beliefs about evolution are well-predicted by demographic factors, such as religious upbringing and political affiliation.

 

So if you are born in place X for example or by religious upbringing P, you will doubt evolution.

You doubt evolution, then it's becauyse you were born/brought up in place X. (fallacy of affirmation-of-the-consequent). I see atheists make this mistake all of the time at forums like this!

 

 

Phat's study: A child raised by Buddhists in California is much more likely to accept evolution than one raised by evangelical Protestants in Kansas.

 

 

 This is again, tautologous, it doesn't tell us much more than the obvious. Tautologies usually don't tell us much. In an atheist country that has no religion, it is also likely you will accept evolution and atheism.

 

This type of study paints a pretty simplistic picture of causation. I would like to give an analogy that shows that causation can be conflated with origins. (the genetic fallacy)

 

 

wiki: The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

 

Let's say that if you were born in Africa, chances are you would have dark skin. Well, it now is easy to CONFLATE the cause of dark skin with the high probability-factor, if you place the emphasis on the statistic. This is why politicians LOVE statistics, because statistics can carry question-begging baloney within the statistic.

 

For example you might then tend to think or it will seemingly be IMPLIED that if you are from Africa the reason you have dark skin is because you are from there. But the actual cause of darker skin is genetics. So the place itself is not the true cause, because dark skin in Africa would actually be IPSO FACTO. You would only have dark skin in Africa because it was inherited genetically.

 

In the very same way, people from certain places will believe certain things, is IPSO FACTO, as well as tautologously tenuous, which means the true cause of you believing X or not believing X, isn't that you were born or brought up that way, but because ORIGINALLY someone made a freewill choice to accept a certain belief system. Most adults in free countries then come to an adult decision in the same way when they mature, and can change their beliefs.

 

So then we can see the logical errors people tend to make, they might conclude that if you are from Africa you are black and that is why you are black, but what if you are European and moved there? This highlights the problem of affirming the consequent. The second mistake is to conclude that a certain effect is caused by the place or origin you are coming from.(the genetic fallacy)

 

 The cause is actually going to be more complicated because as we mature as adults, we come to analyze beliefs for ourselves, especially if we are brought up in a free society.

 

Many of us don't accept evolution because we believe the better explanation by far, through our studies, is that macro-evolution didn't happen, and the same facts can support a conclusion that an intelligent designer is responsible for the organisms, because we already know that the cause of information-code is intelligent designers,(KNOWN cause), we already know the creator of specified complexity is the known-cause of intelligent design. We already know that directed-energy is the known-cause of intelligent design.  Rationally there is no reason to reject a known cause so you can dismiss evolution by rationalism alone. It is special-pleading fallacy to treat organisms any differently because biomimetics proves the design in organisms is SMARTER otherwise why would we give up and borrow them from nature for our technology. (~reductio ad absurdum~)

 

There are many people, that come to not accept evolution, when they actually critically examine it in a way whereby it can be falsified according to an objective criteria, most notably a conspicuous absence of evidence where certainly expected to exist, falsifies evolution via the modus tollens. This is the general falsification of evolution the fossils give us, because there is no fudge-factor that can give you a movie that can give you a trillion missing frames.

 

(I might post a link to this to Phat, just to be fair to him, so he can read our interest.)EFF versus EVC  

[Calypsis4 640]

(I might post a link to this to Phat, just to be fair to him, so he can read our interest.)EFF versus EVC   

 

 

 

 

Actually, we had one of the admins of EVC posting here about a year ago. He didn't do so well.

 

But concerning your OP; as I stated to driewerf, I was not born into a Christian family and I was an evolutionist and an ardent defender of Darwinism. My conversion was by two men on opposite sides of the debate: Henry Morris (after reading The Genesis Flood and his book Twilight of Evolution. The final nail in the coffin for evolution however was after reading the Isaac Asimov (an atheist, evolutionist) book 'The Wellsprings of Life'. 

 

Best wishes, Mike.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

Calypsis, thanks - your testimony is valued because it emphasizes those errors that the study makes. Many like you have come to reject evolution upon personal investigation. I used to think I had to accept evolution in my late teens, early twenties, but also came to study the issue and reject it.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

I have sought to give my reasons for why I don't accept macro-evolution in this post, Calypsis and friends. It is the same reason I reject the claims of a famous family, they claim to be movie stars. Here is what I have written as for my reasons of rejecting evolution:

 

 

FOZZIL FAMILY RECORD.

 

Ever heard of the Fozzil family record? Mike Fozzil and his family have made some claims about their employment-history.

 

Mike Fozzil claims that before he was a toilet-cleaner, he was a movie-star and was in several movies.

 

When we look into his employment-record, we see in the Fozzil record, that there is plenty of evidence that Mike has been a toilet-cleaner for about 12 years, but we don't find any history or evidence that he was in any movies.

 

His son, Bat Fozzil, is a flying-instructor. He claims that before he was a flying instructor, he was a famous bollywood movie star, and before that he was a professional runner in the 100 metres. When we look at the Fozzil-record we only find history of Bat Fozzil being a flyer, we don't find any evidence of his claims that he was in bollywood, or ever even went near the place, and there is no evidence he was a fast runner, either.

 

Then there is Mike's daughter, Lucy Fozzil. She claims that she used to be on all fours doing skin-flicks. She claims to be the sexiest P*rn star in history before she helped Mike clean toilets.

 

In the Fozzil-record we don't find any evidence that Lucy was anything more than a toilet-cleaner. 

 

It seems all of the Fozzils, and their record, only show that what they are now, is basically what they always were. 

 

Would you as a person of intellect, entertain their claims?

 

Perhaps if they had claimed something smaller, perhaps if Mike had claimed to wash windows before he washed toilets, then that might not have aroused suspicions, because that is not such a huge claim to make. 

 

 

-------------------

 

Obviously, on a serious note, these examples point out how falsification-evidence is qualified correctly as negative evidence. If I tell you I have a million in cash in my loft, and we don't find the million in my loft, it is a WEAK point to say that, "my falsification evidence does not physically exist". Of course it doesn't - which is the whole point, because it is not a true claim. DUH! What would you argue then? "Listen mike, this claim is only falsified if we find monopoly money, but the absence of real cash just isn't evidence for us!"

 

It's the same if you claim that 500 billion dolphins have washed ashore on Brighton beach. If we don't find any, would you respond by saying, "but you have no positive evidence I am wrong!" Of course I don't - which is exactly what we would expect if your dolphin claim was NOT true. 

 

It seems to me, evolutionists commonly try and PLAY DOWN the significance of negative-evidence, by trying to focus on the rather flimsy circumstantial evidence of evolution, but the focus should always be on the BIG-CLAIM. If you have BIG CLAIMS, like the Fozzil-family, then you have to back them up with BIG evidence. But to claim Mike Fozzil was always a toilet cleaner or of similar such work, is NOT a big claim. The burden of proof wouldn't be upon me if I was to make the counter-claim that Mike Fozzil was only ever a cleaner, when all of the evidence agrees and the claim is small.