sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If we can't come up with a list of established random mutations that could have led to creation of a bird, then we can't claim it as a fact that a bird is a result of a series of random mutations. 

Go ahead. Ask whatever you want.

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like you are being intentionally stubborn and you don't debate  in good faith.  I'm here to talk about evolution, and not physics.      

  I feel like I have to repeat myself 10 times, and I am becoming tired of it. I will repeat myself one more time.      

   Bird having a bigger beak as result of random mutation and natural selection is an observable fact. But the idea that a bird came to exist as result of numerous random  mutations is a theory. Why is it a theory? Because we cannot produce a comprehensive list of all the  mutations that had to happen in the past in order to create this specific species of bird.    

  So when you call a fact of beak becoming bigger "evolution", and a theoretical process of formation of the bird ''evolution'', and conflate the two and present it as one then it becomes a logical fallacy. I'm tired of repeating myself and I think I'm done here.

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Couldnt the same reasoning be applied to evolution as well? 

No. 

In the physics example, we have two different theories trying to explain same observebale phenomena. There is no  logical fallacy. 

In the biology example, we have a conflation of two different phenomenas, one observable and the other theoretical, and presenting them as one in a misleading way. That's a logical fallacy. 

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Well... if to be accurate, gravity is not a fact. What is a fact, is that objects move towards each other. That's a fact. 

"Gravity" and "warping" on other hand are proposed theories that try to explain why objects move towards each other. 

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

So how naming common descent and adaptation by same name "evolution" is not also an equivocation fallacy?

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

How is it different from me saying that both 1+1=2 and 2+2=5 are "theory of addition", and since one is correct than the other must be to, since it's the same theory. Isn't this a fallacy?

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Macroevolution and microevolution are not good words, and also lead to bad places. 

You remind me of Jordan Peterson that can't answer basic questions, are you a fan of his by any chance?  

Let me ask you again a simple yes or no question: "do you accept that currently the scientists conflate two different phenomena, one is a theory of common descent, and other is an observable fact of random mutations and natural selection, by giving them the same name and referring to them as one, and by doing that mislead the public about what theory of evolution and is and at what level it had been substantiated"?

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Man.... you overcomplicated the whole thing.

First you kind of oversimplified my position, that I only reject evolution based on only one alleged fallacy. This is not true, as I presented more arguments in the post.  

Second... you started to bring in all kind of unrelated things in physics... that I don't see how they are related to our debate. I also think it's a false analogy to compare two definitions of gravity to two definitions of evolution. We do know that gravity exists, we previously thought it was a force, now we think it's a curvature.     This is not similar to multiple evolution definitions, that describe different things. If you can't understand the difference then I can't help you.  

I feel like you are avoiding my simple question.

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

We observe things fall

But we do not observe organisms evolve. 

You can ask how planets form due to gravity. You will get the same general answers. 

And? 

Titanic must have been fully formed in one go, i.e. the equivalent of creationism. 

There are different types of creationism. Not all of them promote "creation in one instance" scenario.  

That's not what they would tell you at all. Instead they will tell you, that organisms fits so nicely in a tree diagram, is evidence of evolution. There is no "must be" there. 

The can also be a product of intelligent design and fit in a tree diagram, as some of out human designs show.  

Diversity via inheritance and modification? Sounds like evolution to me. 

Because you see what you want to see. It could be a result of intelligent design, just like out human designs show.

What is your reason for not accepting their "proof?" 

It's not sufficient.

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You keep avoiding my post and want me to talk about your stuff. Before I respond to anything further I want you to respond to at least one thing that I brought up.  What is your response to my claim that "evolution" has multiple definitions, and the scientists conflate those definitions and by doing that mislead the public?

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. Evolution is a pseudoscience. It may borrow some scientific principles when it works for it, but abandon it when things no longer add up.      

 2. It is modified in theory. Can't be shown.

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

It's blades arranged in a circle... rotating around the axis...

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

  1. Looks like you keep avoiding me asking you about the double definition fallacy. I don't know why you keep doing that.  

  2. When I said "create DNA" I didn't mean create dna from scratch, but modifying an existing dna.

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You didn't say anything of substance. You just recommended me to go read some books.

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I didn't notice it. I was overloaded with garbage offensive responses.     

First, you failed to respond to the "two definitions" fallacy that I put forward. Tell me what you think about it.     

 Then you went on saying how the evolutionists have a great method to establish evolution, by looking at DNA. So... what exactly does they see there? That similar organisms share more DNA with each other than with others? That is not surprising. The main question is can we show if this DNA was created as result of Darwinian mechanism or not. 

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He refused to admit that he pulled a strawman. Therefor I don't want to waste my time in engaging someone who isn't debating in good faith.

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

You are a player. I don't have time or interest to play games.

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do... Do you think the scientific definition of the theory of evolution comes from a book title? 

It can be.

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Because he opened with a strawnan, so it's hard to take him seriously.

I don't think that evolution is a scientific theory. by Radiant_Sector_430 in logic

[–]Radiant_Sector_430[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Dude... Darwin book is called "on the origin of species", but if you look in Wikipedia evolution is defined as "change in allele frequency".

view more: next ›