The Central Flaw of Evolution

But the proof IS there. Thousands of biologists over the course of 150 years have accumulated mountains of evidence. If you go to https://scholar.google.com/ and type in evolution, it will pull up 4,680,000 publications about evolution. Are you actually claiming that 97% of scientists and over 4 million publications are wrong? What makes you the expert over all of that? But please, show your evidence against evolution again. Now that I have found the power of Google Scholar, I have a new weapon against ignorance and superstition.

 

Facts supersede creationist memes and your opinion.

 

I have asked for ONE proof, here. Instead, i have mostly gotten arguments of authority, & Argumentum ad populum, both logical fallacies that have NO bearing on the subject. This is a science thread, calling for a SCIENTIFIC analysis of the evidence. Claiming that there are 'millions of people who believe this', or that 'such & such expert believes this', is NOT evidence. Those are both logical fallacies.

I already know the answer to your google search. You will find assertion after assertion, or vague, undefined 'studies', or pompous experts declaring their OPINION as proven science. NONE of that is scientific evidence.

My challenge remains, unfaced, unrebutted, unresolved. Show me. Provide ONE example of macro evolution. You cannot, because it is a fantasy.. it is a belief, with no basis in empirical science. That is why all i get here is logical fallacies, ridicule, & jihadist zeal. How are those things applicable in a purely scientific discussion?

 

What 'creationist memes?' This is just you injecting irrelevant information to deflect from the impotence of your arguments. Show me the science. You guys talk tough, & have the ridicule & logical fallacies down pat, but your science & logic are pathetic. You are standing on empty arguments, with NO scientific basis. Your deflections, ridicule, & fallacies have NO place in a scientific discussion, yet that is all you present.. constantly.. with no shame. It borders on the absurd, to see this kind of 'argument' in a scientific debate.

 

The hopelessly inadequate fossil record refutes Darwinism, or common descent.
Discoveries in biochemistry during the past few decades refute Darwinism, or common descent.
Mathematicians well versed in biology have refuted Darwinism, or common descent.
The inability of the most determined evolutionary biologists to create some new species, by raising and irradiating bacteria, and fruit flies, whose life cycles are much, much shorter than our own, refute Darwinism.

How many different scientific disciplines must refute Darwinian nonsense before his faithful stop screaming "fact, fact, fact, proof, proof, proof, law, law, law"? It is a moot question. Only death of the old and their ideas will put an end to the tautology of Darwinism.

Hundreds of books have been written refuting Darwinian nonsense. Hundreds. It is the biggest scientific fraud in history, with countless lies and scams perpetrated over the decades to lend it the support it so desperately seeks. Just like "climate change," the second biggest hoax.

 

First of all, nobody on this thread has used Argumentum ad populum to defend evolution, mainly because there are a lot of Americans that DON'T believe in evolution. As for the argument from authority, it is only a fallacy if the authority in question does not have the necessary expertise, otherwise if would be a fallacy for the courts to have expert witnesses. Where argument from authority becomes a fallacy is when the comments from an authority from a different field is used to bolster an argument they don't have expertise in. An example would be using a heart surgeon's testimony claiming that a certain acne medicine is best. A dermatologists testimony, on the other hand, would not be a fallacy.

What arrogance you have to think that you know more than the researches who have published the over 4 million publications that are out there about evolution. What authority do YOU have to make the claim that none of it is scientific evidence?

If you want evidence for macroevolution, it has been shown to you numerous times. It is called the fossil record. People on this forum have shown in it to you again and again but you constantly dismiss it for trivial reasons. You seem to expect us to show you a mouse evolving to a tiger or something of similar nature right before your eyes, but that's not how it works. If you want to watch species evolve to something new instantly, watch Pokemon.

 

We have many terms to describe groups of things: an armoury of aardvarks; a gaggle of geese; an immersion of Baptists; a murder of crows; a wallow of pigs. So I thought I'd have a go at the inadequate fossil record.

An indequacy of fossils
An impotency of fossils
A meagreness of fossils
An insufficiency of fossils
A paucity of fossils
A dearth of fossils
A deficiency of fossils
An absence of fossils
A smallness of fossils
A fewness of fossils
A famine of fossils

I like the last three best, though the second one seems truest considering religious convictions.

 

No.
No.
What mathematicians?
Just because it hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean it is untrue.

No scientific discipline refutes evolution, they actually support it.

Please prove either are a fraud.

 

As I previously told you; do not presume, like so many before you, that I can be goaded into futile discussion.
But; don’t let that stop you from what you excel at;
posting boring diatribes that are filled with hand waving,bogus claims and reek of narcissism;.

~fini~

 

The fossil record is terrible evidence for Darwinism, I think you should study it before speaking about it on here.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the theory of chemical evolution.

- - - Updated - - -

But what if the facts do support design?

 

Evidence for what? Change over time? That of course is a fact. Darwinism? Scientists accepted it as truth and then tried interpreting science to fit into it. It is obvious you people have a bias just like creationists do, if someone even mentions "design" you just reject it without consideration. You people are the ignorant and superstitious ones, so your "new weapon" would be suicidal.

 

What facts?
In order to be accepted by the scientific community, a theory must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence.
Intelligent design is not supported by any credible scientific evidence.

 

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. - Max Planck, 1858-1947

Old ideas die hard, particularly when they are subsidized by billions of government dollars. This is precisely the case for Darwinism and global warming, renamed *climate change*. Scientists lie for money. Anyone who says otherwise utters nonsense.

 

Oh really?
You actually mean not accepted by mainstream science. Its the naturalist interpretation, not the facts. Darwinism has been accepted as a fact without question, but if you were to examine it, it wouldn't really be supported by the evidence. You accept the mainstream view of methodological naturalism, not the evidence.

 

The seemingly abrupt discontinuity comes from the fact that once you mention ID you have left the world of scientific method.

There is no possibility of testing what some undetectable supernatural being might have done - or might be doing right now. And, there is no limit to the scope of what that "contribution" might be. The "god did it" answer simply terminates scientific exploration.

So, it's pretty hard to switch from science to "God did it" in the scope of a scientific discussion. One pretty much needs to pick whether we're discussing science or religion, because the assumptions and processes are so different.

 

It is possible to demonstrate that life was the product of an Intelligence. ID and "God did it" are not the same("God did it" is a god of the gaps). Intelligent Design is science, and not religion. An Intelligent cause being the explanation of life is scientific, and is held by religious doctrines(meaning it has religious implications, but is not religion itself). Your using methodological naturalism as an excuse to not accept Intelligent Design.

 

ID doesn't follow scientific method. It is not science. It's just as much a "god of the gaps" approach, for that matter, as it merely postulates that if something looks unlikely and we don't understand it, then it must be done by an all-powerful undetectable entity we call god. That is a "god of the gaps" argument.

And, even your post mingles science and religion - two discrete fields which have fundamental differences in assumptions and definitions, fields declared by the Pope (and rightfully so) as separate realms.

 

Well, I am intrigued. You believe in change over time, but not evolution (I assume that's what you mean by Darwinism)? Maybe you just don't believe in natural selection, I'm not sure.
As for rejecting "design", before you can show that something was designed, you must show proof of a designer, because without a designer, then the only logical explanation of design is that it come into being through natural processes.

 

Intelligent Design doesn't qualify as a scientific theory;it's nothing more than creationism in a cheap suit.

 

I have the arrogance to insist on evidence for my theories. You have not provided any. I have seen more logical fallacies on this thread, for this topic, than in any other, in my whole history of debating on the internet.

1. I am not asking for '4 million' papers that provide evidence for evolution, but one. Give me one, & i'll be shocked & amazed.
2. Claiming that 'all scientists believe' in the ToE is argumentum ad populum, or bandwagon.
3. claiming that 'so & so is really smart', & believes in the ToE is argument of authority.
4. Claiming that i must prove it cannot happen, which many posters have done here, is argumentum ad ignorantiam.
5. Evading the subject, & attacking the intelligence of the poster is Argumentum ad hominem, which is always a favorite in this subject.
6. I've already noted the 'false equivalence' of correlating micro with macro evolution, which is another logical fallacy.
7. Similar to #6, is 'post hoc ergo propter hoc', or alleging that correlation implies causation. Just because organisms can vary WITHIN their genetic parameters, does not imply the CAUSATION of the ToE.. at least, not scientifically. It only does so by flawed reasoning.
8. Gambler's fallacy. The assumption that if 'given enough time, anything is possible'. But it has not been shown that the process in question is even possible, by ANY means.
9. Argument by assertion. This is the favorite here among the ToE faithful. Plug your fingers in your ears, & repeat the mantra over & over, hoping that repetition will make up for the rational & scientific flaws. They do not.
10. And of course there are red herrings, straw men, argumentum verbosium, onus probandi, argumentum ad antiquitatem, & many others. It has been amazing seeing all these logical fallacies together in what should be a simple debate over scientific evidence & methodology.

Ah, i see. You just pop in every now & then, make your arguments of assertion, then ditch the debate. ..probably the best strategy, since you have no science to present. This is a SCIENTIFIC thread, with a call for SCIENTIFIC evidence. Why do you bother to just pipe in occasionally? Spice it up with ad hominem & assertion? You don't think we already have enough of that, without you adding more?

I find the 'god did it' detractors to be merely that: Detractors from the discussion. However, i don't see that being said by any of the critics of evolution, but the ToE proponents themselves, to dodge the issues. I see you taking the 'moral high ground', scientifically, attempting to smear any 'godists' or 'creationists' with an anti-science meme, thereby freeing you from having to prove your own 'theory' with any science. There is probably a name for this fallacy as well.. maybe i'll look it up sometime.

This is not a debate about religions, or what philosophical view is best. This is a SCIENCE thread, calling for science to be used for evidentiary based methodology. You know, the scientific method? Deflections about religious opinions are irrelevant, unless you are correlating the ToE with being just another religious opinion?

So how about it? We've gone through the gamut of logical fallacies, so how about some evidence for a change? Real Factual Evidence that proves the hypothesis? Anyone? No? Does this not tell you something, when NO evidence can be presented to demonstrate a basic theory, which is at the root of a worldview? Are not your naturalistic beliefs about the universe based on flawed assumptions & logical fallacies? Is critical thinking that anathema to you, that you will believe in absurdities rather than face science & reason?

 

Where ya been Buddy!
I DESTROYED Your daily LIES (my #93) and you Avoided this, your own string, for a WEEK even tho posting elsewhere on the board.
And you did NOT/Could NOT answer me when you came back.
Bad News
I'm still here.

Still YOUR TURN
Many indoctrinated creationists would try and take technical fault, but you are one of the few who says "there is No evidence".
You can keep going to Church and your whole social network, but even YOU probably now know you're tdelling/living a Lie.
You just keep Denying Everything that is posted/Lying for Jesus.
That is NOT debate.
Have a nice page/weekend. This one is... again... Mine.
+

 

I absolutely have NO interest in smearing anyone.

My position is that when we invoke scientific method we should stick by the rules of scientific method and when we invoke religion we should stick by the rules of religion. The point is that these two methods along with their foundational assumptions are VERY different and they do not mix.

Scientific method is designed to figure out how things work. The central point of religion has little to do with how - it has to do with answering why. So, another way of looking at this is that using the methods designed to explore how to answer the questions of why is a mistake.

So, the processes of evolution are part of every day life for all biologists. We see this theory describe what will be found in the fossil record. We watch in a lab setting as new species arise. Our progress in decoding DNA provided a MASSIVE confirmation of evolution. And, those are some of the reasons why the theory of evolution has gained acceptance.

Let's remember that natural science, scientific method, does not have a method of proof. So asking for proof is just a misunderstanding of scientific method. There IS proof of falsity, but nobody has found a proof that evolution theory is false.

My guess is that you are finding the methods of science to be less than satisfying. You'd like there to be proof, for example. Sorry - science progresses in a different way than that. There is no proof of the theory of relativity, either. There are no theories for which there is proof, because science just doesn't have that. Sometimes you hear people say there IS proof, but they are really just pointing out that there is massive evidence and that it appears pointless to doubt the conclusion - but scientists don't consider that to be proof.

 

I know what the God of the gaps is and ID isn't god of the gaps. In order for ID to be a God of the gaps, it would have to base its criticism of Darwinism as evidence of Intelligent Design(placing design in the absence of evidence for a natural cause). ID doesn't do that, ID theorists have analysis of biological structures for detecting design(and they have methods for it). So, its providing evidence for design rather than relying on the lack of understanding on the origin of life.

 

So you are familiar with logical fallacies, but you have no understanding what they mean. You might want to brush up on those.

Also, I'm not a scientist or researcher so I cannot give you any evidence for any scientific theory. However, I have pointed you toward 4 million publications written by people way smarter than me on the subject, but you say that's not good enough, you only want one. So here it is:
MACROEVOLUTION AND MACROECOLOGY THROUGH DEEP TIME
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4983.2006.00613.x/full

I have a feeling that this will not be acceptable however.

 

Change over time is a fact, but Darwinism isn't(and is problematic). Natural Selection is also a fact.
Design implies a designer. Intelligent Design is about evidence for design in life, not the identity of the designer. If I was walking and found something carved in the wall, I wouldn't need proof of the existence of whoever carved the design to reasonably conclude that the carve in the wall was the product of Intelligent Design. Obviously, a designer is needed, but we can try to determine whether something was designed without knowing the identity of the designer.