Weird Argument Against Evolution...?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-04-2012, 08:30 AM (This post was last modified: 03-04-2012 08:38 AM by Lilith Pride.)
RE: Weird Argument Against Evolution...?
I would think you could classify it simply as an argument from ignorance. He's obviously not looking at the equation properly, he doesn't try to disprove natural selection, just to exclude it.

Basically it's the same as saying so what if Newton discussed gravity after an apple hitting him on the head. Apples have little to do with gravity.

He's one of many who thinks that all you need to do to disprove evolution is prove Darwin incorrect, sadly though he can't even do that.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-04-2012, 08:37 AM
RE: Weird Argument Against Evolution...?
You need to ask them this:

Do you believe that -

1) Water causes wetness
or
2) Wetness causes water

If they say #1, then you say "exactly" and strut around triumphantly.
If they say #2, then... well... there's not much you can do. Just leave.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
14-04-2012, 10:45 PM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2012 10:48 PM by Grappler.)
RE: Weird Argument Against Evolution...?
Natural selection is only one facet of biological evolution. Population dynamics may seem very simplistic on the surface, but there are so many variables in play that in actuality it is extremely complex. Microevolution deals with the diversity of genes within a population, which is very easy to demonstrate. Natural selection is one of the main bridges between micro and macroevolution, which creationists try so fervently to expunge. Natural selection is one of five five factors that, when excluded, would cause a population to experience genetic continuity and would account for things created exactly the way that they are now. Unfortunately for the creationists, especially the young Earthers, the five factors are impossible to discount in a natiral environment.

Nature is ever changing and so it is difficult for any one species to survive for an extended period of time and so they have three options; adapt, emmigrate, or become extinct. That is natural selection plain and simple. If one of the first two do not occur, then the third surely will!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grappler's post
15-04-2012, 12:07 PM
RE: Weird Argument Against Evolution...?
(02-04-2012 10:26 PM)NeonMoment Wrote:  I got a really weird argument from a creationist today...

"Natural selection isn't evolution. And since natural selection is the foundation of evolution, evolution is falsified."

I know what I think and how I responded...what do you guys think?
Its not remotely hard to disprove this argument.

Premise 1
Natural selection isn't evolution
True

Premise 2
natural selection is the foundation of evolution
False

Therefore the conclusion is false,
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-04-2012, 04:45 PM
RE: Weird Argument Against Evolution...?
I understand where he's coming from. Really evolution is a dumb idea. Now a man made out of mud and a women made from his rib, that makes complete sense. Silly scientists

.
I wasn't . . . until I was
I am . . . until I'm not
.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes free2011's post
22-04-2012, 10:40 AM
RE: Weird Argument Against Evolution...?
"Natural Selection isn't evolution."
Correct
"And since natural selection is the foundation of evolution, evolution is falsified."
No...no...no and a thousand times no. Natural selection was the mechanism that Darwin first proposed as a means by which new species originated, hence the title "On the origin of species by means of natural selection." Darwin also wrote about sexual selection, which is not the same as natural selection, so even Darwin posited multiple mechanisms by which new species originate.

And if that is the argument they want to use, then: The bible is the document that provides the foundation for Christian belief and its foundation is contingent upon it being the infallible inerrant word of god. The stories of Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, Jonah in the belly of the great fish and numerous others have all been shown to be completely inaccurate and nothing more than myths. Therefore, the bible has been shown to be fallible and capable of error and this means that Christian belief is based on myth and is false.

Two can play at this game, but only one is accurate.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
25-04-2012, 01:35 PM
RE: Weird Argument Against Evolution...?
(02-04-2012 10:26 PM)NeonMoment Wrote:  I got a really weird argument from a creationist today...

"Natural selection isn't evolution. And since natural selection is the foundation of evolution, evolution is falsified."

I know what I think and how I responded...what do you guys think?
That's just GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out. Key error here is that natural selection is not the foundation of evolution, natural selection is the engine that drives evolution.

So the argument fails.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: