A creationist fallacy that I have picked up on.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-03-2014, 05:25 AM
A creationist fallacy that I have picked up on.
I have noticed this one thing from creationist and its what I would like to call the "The two way disprove" fallacy(thats because I don't know the actual name of it yet).

For example creationist say evolution is not true until a crocoduck is found, however if a crocoduck was found it would falsify evolution. So in this case for the creationist if a crocoduck is no found,the evolution is false, however if one is found the theory is false anyway so whats the point of accepting it now.

The same goes with a baboon giving birth to a human.

Even the second fusion of a chromosome is being used. If the chromosome wasn't found then evolution would be falsified, but because it was found some creationist try to provide this as evidence for their belief.

Evolution Dismantled(funny name seeing how they won't go to peer review) tries to use this as evidence.

"Low and behold, the evidence is actually more consistent with the creationary fusion explanation than with evolution! Human chromosome 2 contains an additional ~150,000 base pairs which are not found in chimpanzee chromosome 2A and 2B (the representative chromosomes from which ours supposedly fused). This is quite extraordinary since we would not expect a fusion to result in more DNA!"

"If creation were true, humans and chimps would be two entirely different and distinct creations. And since chromosome 2 wouldn't have fused from chromosomes in other apes, there is absolutely no reason why humans should not have more DNA than chimps within the creation worldview, but it leaves evolutionists scratching their heads."
http://evolutiondismantled.com/chromosome2

This dishonest tactic can be used so creationist never have to change their minds.

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 04:58 PM
RE: A creationist fallacy that I have picked up on.
I know what that's called but for the life of me I can't remember the name of it. My brain sucks today.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 05:11 PM
RE: A creationist fallacy that I have picked up on.
False Dichotomy maybe?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2014, 05:16 PM
RE: A creationist fallacy that I have picked up on.
It seems to be a host of fallacies and reminds me a lot of the slippery slope, but instead of a small absurd cause to kick start the fallacy, it's a larger one.

Check out my blog: http://www.aisforatheist.blogspot.com It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 01:49 AM
RE: A creationist fallacy that I have picked up on.
(05-03-2014 04:58 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I know what that's called but for the life of me I can't remember the name of it. My brain sucks today.

It's just a simple Strawman, a type of Red Herring Fallacy. The Crocoduck is a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory, in this case it is so bad however that it's actual existence would in fact fly in the face of evolution. However Crocoducks (or rabbits in the pre-Cambrian) simply do not exist. I was unable to find a more specific label that fit the model of 'its such a misrepresentation of the opposition that it being true would actually prove the opposition false'. They're demanding evidence for evolution that would contradict evolution, what is that beyond misrepresentation?

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 05:24 AM
RE: A creationist fallacy that I have picked up on.
(06-03-2014 01:49 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-03-2014 04:58 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I know what that's called but for the life of me I can't remember the name of it. My brain sucks today.

It's just a simple Strawman, a type of Red Herring Fallacy. The Crocoduck is a misrepresentation of evolutionary theory, in this case it is so bad however that it's actual existence would in fact fly in the face of evolution. However Crocoducks (or rabbits in the pre-Cambrian) simply do not exist. I was unable to find a more specific label that fit the model of 'its such a misrepresentation of the opposition that it being true would actually prove the opposition false'. They're demanding evidence for evolution that would contradict evolution, what is that beyond misrepresentation?

Maybe we have a new fallacy on our hands.

[Image: get_some_by_addmedia-d78ip4k.gif] All request for metazoa info and my larger projects should be sent PM
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: A creationist fallacy that I have picked up on.
It's not one fallacy. It's a combination of fallacies, starting with strawman (and, to be honest, pretty much ending there).

By stating that evidence for a crocoduck should be found, the creationist is misrepresenting evolution. Based on that strawman, the creationist now demands the crocoduck evidence, sending the evolutionist on a red herring chase. But if you identify the initial fallacy and correct it, there is no need to classify the remaining components of the fallacy. You're done.

Sending an evolutionist on a quest for evidence that, if found, would refute evolution starts with a strawman. In my opinion, you need to look no further in identifying the fallacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TwoCultSurvivor's post
06-03-2014, 11:23 AM
RE: A creationist fallacy that I have picked up on.
(06-03-2014 09:56 AM)TwoCultSurvivor Wrote:  It's not one fallacy. It's a combination of fallacies, starting with strawman (and, to be honest, pretty much ending there).

By stating that evidence for a crocoduck should be found, the creationist is misrepresenting evolution. Based on that strawman, the creationist now demands the crocoduck evidence, sending the evolutionist on a red herring chase. But if you identify the initial fallacy and correct it, there is no need to classify the remaining components of the fallacy. You're done.

Sending an evolutionist on a quest for evidence that, if found, would refute evolution starts with a strawman. In my opinion, you need to look no further in identifying the fallacy.

Yep, that's what I thought, a bunch of fallacies wrapped up in one, well-played.

Check out my blog: http://www.aisforatheist.blogspot.com It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: