Theory of Evolution exposed

[jlay]

Bravo Philip. And this is the real struggle. What you say exhibits only common sense and the simplest scholarship. Yet, if one espouses this in the academic world, guess what? Religious nut. What saddens me more are Christians, who although shown where they are conflating, equivocating and question begging, refuse to repent and abandon such thought. There is a condescending arrogance (demonstrated in this thread) that surely those opposing Darwinism just don't understand the basics.

A little personal testimony. Just in my immediate family I have three Phd in biological sciences. My sister is a Phd in forresty and works for the Federal Forrestry Dept. leading research on the restoration of the American Chestnut. Her husband is a Wildlife Biology Phd. My sister-n-law is a Phd in veterinary science and is a leader in studying genetic disease. (DVM, PhD, DACVM) All have published peer reviewed papers. All are believers, and all have faced difficulties in the academic world due to their Christian faith.

My sister accepted evolution (Darwinan) years ago. I thought, man, maybe there is something to this. So, we had a discussion several years ago. After making it very clear that I beleived Darwinism to be false, I asked for the best evidence. She said, "Do you get a flu shot every year?" Well sure. "Well the flu virus has evolved." What she was doing is a textbook case of the fallacy of equivocation. She was taking testable and observable examples of change, and then making the leap of faith that this observable change could somehow account for molecules to man evolution just given enough time. This is what she was spoon fed for 10+ years of academia. All of that advanced education and the best argument she can present is a fallacious argument.
You think that is only one incident. Here is an exact word for word quote in an email (to me) from Dr. Gary McCracken, professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Tennessee, from Feb. 2006. "If you doubt that, (Darwinism) I recommend that you get last year's flu shot."
His entire email was laced with condescending insults based on fallacious reasoning. His suggestion was to go to Talk Origins.

I challenge any Darwinists or TE to provide me an answer that is not easily shown to be conflating, equivocationg or question begging. It is time to put an end to this nonsense.

[Philip]

jlay, especially for those who accept the scientific community's established dates for various fossils, I refer back to Hugh Ross' statement on the enormous problem for evolutionists - A HUGE LACK OF TIME:

"Before 543 million years ago, Earth's zoo featured nothing more complex than cryptogamic colonies and some primitive sponges and jellyfish. Then, in a time window narrower than 2 to 3 million years (possibly much briefer), some 40 or more phyla of COMPLEX animals appeared, including 24 or 25 of the 30 animal phyla that remain on earth today ... Not only did complex animal phyla show up virtually all at once, but so did complex ecologies. Predator-prey relationships, for example, did not develop gradually. They were optimized right from the start of the Cambrian Explosion. Furthermore, the most advanced phylum ever to appear on earth, the chordates, (including such vertebrates as jawless fish),shows up at the very base of the Cambrian Explosion fossil record."

"Contrary to what might be expected from a naturalistic evolutionary perspective, which would anticipate the ongoing appearance of new phyla at a relatively high rate, only five or six new phyla have appeared during the past 540 million years, and about 15 phyla have DISAPPEARED. Evolution has proceeded in the opposite direction of what naturalistic models would expect."

[neo-x]

She was taking testable and observable examples of change, and then making the leap of faith that this observable change could somehow account for molecules to man evolution just given enough time. This is what she was spoon fed for 10+ years of academia. All of that advanced education and the best argument she can present is a fallacious argument.

Lol, yeah all the science in the world is wrong?...bravo. only YEC's/ID'ers hold the truth, right?

The virus evolved, period. Kind of a fallacious argumetn on your side, I mean its not the process of evolutiuon which is at fault here, obviously you are not around here to see it actually happen in front of your eyes then why blame science? live out a billion years, see it for your self. I mean have you seen God? I can simply take your statement and say that you are also making a blind leap of faith based on no empirical proof and a classic textbook case of the fallacy of equivocation.

[PaulSacramento]

Jlay and Philip, Are you arguing the evolution doesn't happen or that naturalistic evolution is incorrect?

[RickD]

She was taking testable and observable examples of change, and then making the leap of faith that this observable change could somehow account for molecules to man evolution just given enough time. This is what she was spoon fed for 10+ years of academia. All of that advanced education and the best argument she can present is a fallacious argument.

Lol, yeah all the science in the world is wrong?...bravo. only YEC's/ID'ers hold the truth, right?

The virus evolved, period. Kind of a fallacious argumetn on your side, I mean its not the process of evolutiuon which is at fault here, obviously you are not around here to see it actually happen in front of your eyes then why blame science? live out a billion years, see it for your self. I mean have you seen God? I can simply take your statement and say that you are also making a blind leap of faith based on no empirical proof and a classic textbook case of the fallacy of equivocation.

Neo, I see jlay's point here. Not that he'd want me arguing for him, but I really don't see the jump from "viruses evolving", to "slime to human" evolution. The conflation is obvious isn't it?

[neo-x]

Neo, I see jlay's point here. Not that he'd want me arguing for him, but I really don't see the jump from "viruses evolving", to "slime to human" evolution. The conflation is obvious isn't it?

Its not the virus thats importnat but the process.

Let me ask the question again, what EMPIRICAL evidence has anyone found, ever for a beleif in God? I am not asking for evidence, I am asking for empirical evidence. And if someone can aviod the charge of equivocation and conflation without appealing to logic and inferecne and common sense, (and not being a hypocrite when charging others for it), I'll concede this particular point.

[jlay]

She was taking testable and observable examples of change, and then making the leap of faith that this observable change could somehow account for molecules to man evolution just given enough time. This is what she was spoon fed for 10+ years of academia. All of that advanced education and the best argument she can present is a fallacious argument.

Lol, yeah all the science in the world is wrong?...bravo. only YEC's/ID'ers hold the truth, right?

The virus evolved, period. Kind of a fallacious argumetn on your side, I mean its not the process of evolutiuon which is at fault here, obviously you are not around here to see it actually happen in front of your eyes then why blame science? live out a billion years, see it for your self. I mean have you seen God? I can simply take your statement and say that you are also making a blind leap of faith based on no empirical proof and a classic textbook case of the fallacy of equivocation.

Really, is that the best you've got? Pathetic. Where did I say all the science is wrong? Please stop with your strawmen and senseless attacks implying positions I don't hold. I am saying that Darwinian evolution is built on fallacious reasoning. I've shown how. I've shown in your own faulty reasoning, and your answer is to resort to sorry debate tactics. That is hypocritical since earlier in the thread you were accusing the same thing. You resorted to sad tactics because you know you can't answer what has been specifically challenged.
The virus evolved (changed) which is actually devolving.
What is happening when a virus mutates? And how does this account for functioning systems? It doesn't and you know it. Unless you conflate or equivocate. A loss of info, or corruption of information prevents anti-bodies or anti-biotics from attaching. The virus is and will be a virus. No new systems or functions.

Do you even know what the fallacy of equivocation involves? You once again beg the question when you say the "process of evolution is not at fault." You are presuming what you attempt to prove. You assume evolution (Darwinism) is true, and use an example of evolution. (change) That is the fallacy of equivocation. For the intent of the thread, all I am doing is arguing against the theory of evolution. I've made it clear, and yet you keep attempting to move the goal post. Equivocation is wrongly applying an alternate definition of a word in the place of another definition. For example (obvious): NFL jerseys have evolved over the last 50 years, therefore evolution (Darwinism) is true. Your committing the fallacy on a more subtle level. You've been shown your error. The wise thing would be to stop.

Jlay and Philip, Are you arguing the evolution doesn't happen or that naturalistic evolution is incorrect?

Paul, as I've shown, it all depends on how you are using the term evolution. Change happens. Mutation happens. Coding errors happen. What we call Natural Selection happens. DNA being passed on to offspring happens. Neo would have you believe that I deny these things.
What he would like (based on his comment) is because science (scientific community) has provided so many beneficial things (and it has) that we simply overlook the areas where it is obviously in error. And apparently to point out obvious fallacy is akin to rejecting everything in science, according to Neo. Of course, as Rick has pointed out, what seems obvious with only a modicum of common sense, must be flatly denied. It is the equivalent of Papal infallibility, only lab coats have replaced the priestly robes. The arrogance is obvious. It however is sad too me that some are so blind they can't or won't see it.

Let me ask the question again, what EMPIRICAL evidence has anyone found, ever for a beleif in God? I am not asking for evidence, I am asking for empirical evidence. And if someone can aviod the charge of equivocation and conflation without appealing to logic and inferecne and common sense, (and not being a hypocrite when charging others for it), I'll concede this particular point.

Rabbit trail. Here is a Christian arguing against God, for what purposes? To move the argument. To avoid having to deal with the foundational errors of one's own worldview. And then listen to this. "I'll concede," as long as he doens't have to deal with the charges that if correct, crumble those very foundations. That my friends is willful ignorance.

[neo-x]

Let me ask the question again, what EMPIRICAL evidence has anyone found, ever for a beleif in God? I am not asking for evidence, I am asking for empirical evidence. And if someone can aviod the charge of equivocation and conflation without appealing to logic and inferecne and common sense, (and not being a hypocrite when charging others for it), I'll concede this particular point.

Rabbit trail. Here is a Christian arguing against God, for what purposes? To move the argument. To avoid having to deal with the foundational errors of one's own worldview. And then listen to this. "I'll concede," as long as he doens't have to deal with the charges that if correct, crumble those very foundations. That my friends is willful ignorance.

Spare me your anecdotes, answer the quesation. What EMPIRICAL evidence do you have for God?

[RickD]

Let me ask the question again, what EMPIRICAL evidence has anyone found, ever for a beleif in God? I am not asking for evidence, I am asking for empirical evidence. And if someone can aviod the charge of equivocation and conflation without appealing to logic and inferecne and common sense, (and not being a hypocrite when charging others for it), I'll concede this particular point.

Rabbit trail. Here is a Christian arguing against God, for what purposes? To move the argument. To avoid having to deal with the foundational errors of one's own worldview. And then listen to this. "I'll concede," as long as he doens't have to deal with the charges that if correct, crumble those very foundations. That my friends is willful ignorance.

Spare me your anecdotes, answer the quesation. What EMPIRICAL evidence do you have for God?

Neo, I'm sure there would be a disagreement on what empirical means.
If by empirical you mean knowledge acquired by observation, then look at any ecosystem. There's your empirical evidence for an intelligent designer. Look at the human body, and the way it functions. Function itself comes from a designer.

[Byblos]

Let me ask the question again, what EMPIRICAL evidence has anyone found, ever for a beleif in God? I am not asking for evidence, I am asking for empirical evidence. And if someone can aviod the charge of equivocation and conflation without appealing to logic and inferecne and common sense, (and not being a hypocrite when charging others for it), I'll concede this particular point.

Rabbit trail. Here is a Christian arguing against God, for what purposes? To move the argument. To avoid having to deal with the foundational errors of one's own worldview. And then listen to this. "I'll concede," as long as he doens't have to deal with the charges that if correct, crumble those very foundations. That my friends is willful ignorance.

Spare me your anecdotes, answer the quesation. What EMPIRICAL evidence do you have for God?

Neo, I'm sure there would be a disagreement on what empirical means.
If by empirical you mean knowledge acquired by observation, then look at any ecosystem. There's your empirical evidence for an intelligent designer. Look at the human body, and the way it functions. Function itself comes from a designer.

Existence itself, neo. Without God there is no existence, it is self-evident.

It is the equivalent of Papal infallibility, only lab coats have replaced the priestly robes. The arrogance is obvious. It however is sad too me that some are so blind they can't or won't see it.

Why does everything have to boil down to an anti-catholic analogy, can I know? Besides, the buck has to stop somewhere, right J? Forgive the implication but I'd much rather have it stop with the Pope than with you or me.

[RickD]

Why does everything have to boil down to an anti-catholic analogy, can I know?

The unmitigated gall of some people!

[PaulSacramento]

Would there be disagreement in regards to the following?
Evolution is change over a period of time that allows for a living organism to adapt to the demands imposed by it's environment.

[RickD]

Would there be disagreement in regards to the following?
Evolution is change over a period of time that allows for a living organism to adapt to the demands imposed by it's environment.

In that statement stated as simply as that, no disagreement.

But, if you mean a living organism such as a dinosaur, growing gills and flippers because there's no more food on land....

Or, a one celled organism turning into a sentient human being over billions of years, and call it adaptation...

[Byblos]

Why does everything have to boil down to an anti-catholic analogy, can I know?

The unmitigated gall of some people!

I don't know about unmitigated but gall nonetheless.

[neo-x]

Look at the human body, and the way it functions

Fallacious You are assuming that it is empirical to observe function in nautre, jumping to the conclusion of God. It is emprical proof that such a thing as function exists but not emprical proof of God. That is only a logical assumption.

Existence itself, neo. Without God there is no existence, it is self-evident.

I am not making a case against God, I am questioning as to how people can talk from both saides of their mouth without giving it a second thought. J, has done just that. Existance is not empirical proof, it is again logical. Is there a stamped text visible "made by the christian God" in a human cell when observed under a microscope?