Well there you go, ladies and gentlemen. When someone wants to engage you in conversation, but it soon becomes apparent that their logic is indistinguishable from that expected from an inebriated drunk, the polite thing to do is excuse yourself from the conversation. And as I predicted, and as indeed happened here, the apparent drunk will slobber out claims that you are running away. Right Divider needs pity, and maybe even mental health counselling.
-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Evolution is a falsehood
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
Well there you go, ladies and gentlemen. When someone wants to engage you in conversation, but it soon becomes apparent that their logic is indistinguishable from that expected from an inebriated drunk, the polite thing to do is excuse yourself from the conversation. And as I predicted, and as indeed happened here, the apparent drunk will slobber out claims that you are running away. Right Divider needs pity, and maybe even mental health counselling.
6days
New member
This was already answered for you... "if you suggest we accept majority / popular opinion as truth, then it is a 'bandwagon' argument.".redfern said:
You clearly were making bandwagon arguments when you suggested all experts with a proven track record in biology are going to agree with your belief system.( You asked what the experts are going to say, as if they all have the same opinion) You clearly are making bandwagon arguments when you suggest scientists who disagree with your beliefs are not real scientists.
I asked before... I ask again... Why not just admit that there are scientists with a proven track record in biology, genetics and more who disagree with your version of history / origins?
Haha...There you go... You put the word scientists in quote marks as if they are not real scientists. Somehow you are under the mistaken opinion that science is determined by popular opinion. Funny how you keep telling me I can remove the quote marks around the word scientist yet you don't explain why you put them there in the first place.... It is obvious. You are making bandwagon arguments.redfern said:
Go to the dictionary and look up the word expert. Now look up the word biologist (usually- 'studies living things'.) That will give you a fairly good idea what an expert biologist is. (Human evolution/ common ancestry is a belief about the past)redfern said:
Right Divider
Body part
There was nothing wrong with my logic, but your rant was cute.
How droll!
Thank you. In your defining a bandwagon argument I will highlight 4 non-trivial issues:
(1) Why the tentative “if you suggest …” instead of making the much more definitive statement “You said that …”? Perhaps because you and I both know that I did not say what you are claiming. Your need to “suggest” things that I did not say shows how desperate you are.
(2) Accept? Here are the exact words I used:
Got that – ask them if they concur. I didn’t say one word about you having to agree with them or accept their answers.
(3) majority / popular opinion. I have responded to this already more than once, but I will give it another go. I said go to the premier 100 institutions and approach the experts there. Assume you approach 2 experts at each institution. That’s 200 of the top-notch biologists in the world. The world’s population is 7.5 billion people. Math (tell me if this is over your head): 200 / 7,500,000,000 = 0.0000026%. Put in English, that means I said to ask the top biologists, which are 1/40th of 1% of 1% of 1% of the people you could ask the question to. You think the opinions of the premier 1/40th of 1% of 1% of 1% of the people is just “majority” or “popular opinion”? You are absolutely ludicrous.
(4)truth. Only a few days ago in this thread I said:
Now I realize I posted that to you a few days ago, maybe that is an eternity ago in your mind, but please at least pretend to show an understanding of what science really does.
Rather than showing that my recommendation about going to experts was a bandwagon argument, you succeeded in providing us a sterling example of creationist innuendo, mathematical incompetence, distortion, and falsehoods.
Liar. Show me even one place where I have made any claim that the experts are going to agree with me, or with you, or with each other, or with your Aunt Sally.
See those weasel words – “as if …”. Right there you leave what I have said and insert something I never said. You regularly post laundry lists of things that scientists have said, and then gleefully show where other scientists showed they were wrong. But in your abject ignorance of how real science works, maybe you don’t know that one of the greatest strengths in the lifeblood of science is that other scientists are expected to be thorough in trying to falsify current paradigms. And there is no immunity from critique at any level of scientific acumen. Newton was a genius, except he believed angels had to be continually tweaking the orbits of planets. The genius Lord Kelvin attacked the ideas of the less esteemed Charles Darwin, because he knew the earth was not old enough for Darwin’s slow evolution to have really happened. Except soon other scientists used Lord Kelvin’s own work, and added in radioactive heating, that Kelvin neglected. The age of the earth, as computed by thermodynamics suddenly jumped from Lord Kelvin’s tens of millions of years to Darwin’s billions. I could go on with a lot more – Einstein, Planck, Heisenberg, but the point is made.
But according to 6days I believe the “biology experts club” is just a peaceful old boys society in which all is calm and tranquil, no disagreements or disputes. But, but, but, 6days clearly made the claim that there were experts on his side too, and I concurred. Strange that he would think there is uniformity of opinion in that group, when there seem to be in it experts with dramatically conflicting views on human evolution.
This is kinda like whack-a-mole. No matter how many times 6days’ fallacious claims get bonked on the head, you can be sure that same claim will soon pop right back up again.
Whack a mole
Whomp – got that one
Bonk - Pesky little fellows
In real life moles are a real nuisance. Here they are just funny. Whap – on the noggin
Duuhhhh, so?
6 days, if, upon serious reflection, can I, of my own free will, change my mind about my ideas on god – or perhaps less dramatic – choose to simply author posts more in line with what you advocate?
:blabla:
Darwinists love it when the discussion is over who said what.
They would hate it if it turned to something regarding the evidence.
Need to be careful relying on that.
Or, as George told Jerry "It's not a lie if you believe it"
And religionists love it when everyone believes an ancient book and take it as evidence.
Evolutionists never understand what science is, and failed to admit that it is because of the time constrain that ToE is completely different from any other science. ToE is an alternative attempt completely different from any other conventional science in that it doesn't go through an end-to-end lab process to get to a scientific result. It is because it takes millions of years to complete such a cycle demanded by any other conventional science that ToE has to employ an alternative way to try to approach a possible truth. How reliable this method is remains questionable.
This approach is basically to fabricate a case by evidence. This however is completely different from any other science which is the observation (and prediction) of an end-to-end process repeatedly to get to a conclusion with predictability and falsifiability which ToE lacks.
It is thus a deception to try to equate ToE to a conventional science. This however is what evolutionists trying to do on a daily basis!
This approach is basically to fabricate a case by evidence. This however is completely different from any other science which is the observation (and prediction) of an end-to-end process repeatedly to get to a conclusion with predictability and falsifiability which ToE lacks.
It is thus a deception to try to equate ToE to a conventional science. This however is what evolutionists trying to do on a daily basis!
Nope. We assert the veracity of the Bible. We use evidence to look for holes in our ideas.
Science.
We know you hate it.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
6days
New member
Sure... You suggested they agree with you when you said "what you, 6days, would expect (experts) answers to be on the question of whether man is a product of evolution.?" You obviously thought the experts agree with you.Redfern said:
Great... We now agree! (You still did not try to explain why you put the word 'scientist' in quote marks when they don't agree with the yourself).Redfern said:
Jose Fly
New member
So the folks at the National Academy of Sciences don't understand what science is? The people who publish journals like Science and Nature don't either?
I'd love to see you tell one of them that in person.
Where are the "end-to-end lab experiments" for glacial erosion of U-valleys? Where are such experiments for the earth orbiting the sun? For tuna migrations across the Pacific?
Er....um....what? How does one "fabricate a case by evidence"? If you have evidence to support your case, there's no need to fabricate, right?
So I'm curious....what in your mind explains the fact that evolutionary theory has been widely supported among the world's life scientists for over a century? Are they all extremely bad at their jobs (so much so that someone like you can spot the problems, while they can't)? Are they part of the most extensive and long-running conspiracy in the history of mankind? Are they under some magic spell?
No, I dislike the ignorance.
If the evidence contradicts your Bible you ignore the evidence because it interferes with your assertion of the validity of your old Book
genuineoriginal
New member
The evidence does not contradict the Bible.
The evidence is what it is despite the interpretations made by mankind.
It is the interpretation of the evidence that contradicts the Bible.
OK, but the evidence is the evidence. The evidence is that the universe is 13+billions of years old. That live evolved on earth. You either ignore it or put your own particular wackadoodle spin on it. You are quite simply incorrect in your understanding.
I see that you once again are forced to use weasel words like “suggested”. Had I actually made the “claim that the experts are going to agree with me”, I would have made that claim explicitly. Once again you are forced to “suggest” something I never said.
I agreed on that several posts ago. Please keep up. But since we agree that you have experts on your side, how does that comport with your contention that I claimed “that the experts are going to agree with me”?
I had Michael Behe in mind. Would you list him as one of the experts on your side?
6 days, if, upon serious reflection, can I, of my own free will, change my mind about my ideas on god – or perhaps less dramatic – choose to simply author posts more in line with what you advocate?
Right. Your interpretations of evidence are not evidence though.
That's your interpretation of the evidence.
The "evidence" is millions of dead things covered in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.
Millions of dead things = fossils
covered in rock layers = strata
laid down by water = sedimentary rock layers
all over the earth = worldwide
You can try to interpret it to mean that life evolved (literally your next sentence in your post). But your interpretation doesn't fit the evidence.
However, the evidence suggests that there was a worldwide catastrophe (most likely a flood) that resulted in fossils being buried in strata in multiple different layers.
You don't get "life evolved on earth" from "millions of dead things covered in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth."
Says the one calling his interpretation of evidence "evidence." :mock:
Someone needs to look in a mirror.
Self-loathing is no way to go through life.
Nope.
If you have evidence that shows the Bible impossible, we want to hear it.
That's the attitude portrayed in the Bible.
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk