|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/29/2009 : 04:28:28
|
As the the original thread seems to have mysterously been attacked by format gremlins, I've decided to kick off a new one.
I realize that no one much cares about this anymore and in all truth, I don't either. In fact, the only reason I'm still doing it is because of curiosity; I'm curious to see just how long and far afield this hammerhead is going to go with it. So anyhow, here is his take on the famous, old Straw Man Fallacy:
Logical Fallacies
Logic can be a valuable tool for Christians to defend their faith. But mistakes in reasoning can derail even the best argument.
The Fallacy of the Complex Question
The Fallacy of Bifurcation
The Ad Hominem Fallacy
The Faulty Appeal to Authority
See all
It’s a fallacy that just shouldn’t happen—but it does all the time. The straw-man fallacy is when a person misrepresents his opponent’s position and then proceeds to refute that misrepresentation (i.e., the “straw man”) rather than what his opponent actually claims.1 Here’s an example:
“Creationists do not believe that animals change. But clearly, animals do change. So, creationists are mistaken.” |
An oversimplification and therefore a Straw Man in and of itself.
| Since creationists do indeed believe that animals change (just not from one basic created kind to another), the argument is a straw-man fallacy. The argument does not refute what creationists actually claim. |
What creationists actually claim is in the face of verified science going back over 150 years. The creationists are incorrect.
| Such a misrepresentation could be unintentional; it could be that a particular evolutionist simply misunderstands what a creationist is teaching. Or the fallacy could be quite deliberate. That, of course, is a dishonest approach, yet it is quite common in origins debates. |
There is no “origins debate,” there is only incomplete scientific studies on the one hand and random wind on the other. Straw Man, and one that gets used by creationists ad nauseum! The dishonesty lies on your end.
| Even in cases where the misrepresentation is unintentional, there is still a degree of liability. After all, the arguer should have done sufficient research and studied what it is the opponent actually teaches. We would certainly be willing to overlook minor misunderstandings, particularly where a position is complex or nuanced (though the critic should still be corrected on the issue). However, there are a number of cases where the creationist position is so clear that misrepresentations by evolutionists are simply inexcusable. The following are a few examples. |
Patronizing the Opponent, and here we go; Floggin' that Dead Horse again....
| If an evolutionist were to claim, “Creationists don’t believe in science,” this would be a straw-man fallacy.2 Creationists do believe in science. There are several full-time Ph.D. scientists on the Answers in Genesis staff. I’ve argued on this website, as in my book (The Ultimate Proof of Creation) that biblical creation is what makes science possible. |
And mongering a book in the bargain. Pretty shameless. Oh, and we know about the Ph.D. “scientists” on staff at AiG. They haven't published in their fields in so long that they have lost any scientific credibility they might once have had and now are no longer qualified to empty a lab's slops bucket. Arguing from Authority, and a pretty lame authority at that.
Someone may claim, “Creationists believe in the fixity of species.” However, this is certainly not the mainstream biblical creationist position. There may be a few individuals that hold to such a concept, but it is not the position advocated by most creationists. Thus, the generalization “creationists believe . . .” is false.
Likewise, the claim, “Creationists say there are no good mutations” is not representative of what biblical creationists teach. Generally, we say that mutations do not add brand-new, creative information to the genome and are thus in the “wrong direction” to make evolution happen. But we do believe that mutations can result in traits that increase survival value under certain conditions. |
What is the difference between “fixity of species” and “created kinds?” Begging the Question.
“Answers in Genesis is pushing to get creation to be taught in public schools alongside evolution.”
This is definitely false. Answers in Genesis as a ministry is not about political or legal change. Rather, we are about defending the Bible from the very first verse and teaching other Christians to do the same. Although this may eventually result in a changed political and legal situation, we do not (as a ministry) attempt to change laws or get involved in politics. |
So they claim, however, from our reading we see that they do indeed advocate getting their version of the Bible into the classroom. They are allowing others to do the dirty work, and that's a smart strategy. It is not AiG who will end up in court, but suckers like the Discovery Institute and ICR. Outright Lie.
“The Bible teaches that the earth has literal pillars and corners and cannot be moved. It is clearly wrong.”
This is a misrepresentation of Scripture and therefore constitutes a straw-man fallacy. The Bible uses figures of speech (just as we do when we say, “Tim is a pillar of the community”) and poetic language at times. Referring to the cardinal directions as “corners”3 or the stability of the earth as not able to “be moved”4 is not an error. It is entirely inappropriate for a critic to take the poetic sections of the Bible as literal—or the literal historical sections as poetic. Many objections against Scripture turn out to be straw-man fallacies. |
Agree. But whatever happened to: “every word in the Bible is inerrant truth?” If some of it is poetic, why not more of it; fer 'xample; Genesis? Again, the Question is Begged.
| The claims that creationists believe in a flat earth, that we deny laws of nature, or that we take every verse of the Bible in a wooden literal sense are all baseless assertions. |
Oh? Moving the Goalposts, are we?
| Nonetheless, claiming that creationists believe in such things makes the creation position easier to discredit—but it is not a rationally cogent way to debate. Granted, not all evolutionists do this; some do accurately represent their opponents. But ignorance of biblical creation among those who oppose it is a serious problem: one that Christian apologists must be prepared to face. |
Yes indeed, and you guys wouldn't be so easy to to take down if you argued from a position other than the one you embrace. The hard, cold facts are there before you, yet your eye is blinded by superstitious nonsense. In many cases, we've noticed, there is a profit motive involved.
| We must gently encourage our opponents to find out what it is that creationists actually teach. This is not a difficult task. Our positions on the most-asked questions are well-summarized in the New Answers Book series and to a great extent on this very website. |
Walloping another book and plugging the website. Non Sequitur as well as Cheer-Leading.
| Creationists must also stay educated on both sides of the issue so that we do not commit the very same fallacy.5 Watch for misrepresentations of creation or other Christian teachings and be ready to point out that such straw-man arguments are fallacious; yet always do so with gentleness and respect. |
Yeah, like that's gonna happen.
This is the worst screeving he's put forth on the topic yet. The whole thing could be considered a Straw Man accompanied by Hand Waving and Appeals to Authority. He has done little to explain the fallacy and relied on a multitude of rather lame examples to make his point, and thrown a little preaching whilst he's about it. The whole thing is no more than a thinly disguised attack on the ToE, and I only hope Dr. Lisle gets as bored with this as I am.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
Edited by - filthy on 09/29/2009 05:00:05
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 09/29/2009 : 09:31:07 [Permalink]
|
I care!
Honest.
I have enjoyed your takedown of the oh so retarded "Dr" Lisle.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2009 : 10:19:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
As the the original thread seems to have mysterously been attacked by format gremlins, I've decided to kick off a new one.
|
The forum is experiencing formatting hickups. Try to stay clear of any characters you can't find on a regular keyboard, and you/we should be fine.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2009 : 10:28:38 [Permalink]
|
Likewise, the claim, “Creationists say there are no good mutations” is not representative of what biblical creationists teach. Generally, we say that mutations do not add brand-new, creative information to the genome and are thus in the “wrong direction” to make evolution happen. But we do believe that mutations can result in traits that increase survival value under certain conditions.
|
(Emphasis mine)
But the nylon-digesting bug is a prime example of a brand-new information to the genome, making the bacteria abandon a reliable food source for a completely novel one that didn't exist in nature before the 1940s...
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2009 : 10:59:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by filthy
As the the original thread seems to have mysterously been attacked by format gremlins, I've decided to kick off a new one.
|
The forum is experiencing formatting hickups. Try to stay clear of any characters you can't find on a regular keyboard, and you/we should be fine.
|
In fact, it's probably best to be cautious of some of the keys on Swedish keyboards, too.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2009 : 12:34:49 [Permalink]
|
The only keyboard I have is a regular one -- although sometimes the keys elude me.
I care!
Honest.
I have enjoyed your takedown of the oh so retarded "Dr" Lisle.
|
Well, as long as someone cares......
But really, it's so easy it can scarcely be considered sporting, and I know why. He's aiming his grade-school quality writings at the already convinced. As there are no skeptics to consider, he doesn't have to work very hard at it. I call that the Shiftless Fallacy.
At one time, I wished we could get Jason Lisle to argue in here (fat chance), but no longer. Our floor is already clean enough and we don't need another wipe rag.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2009 : 19:05:51 [Permalink]
|
How's about the Appeal to Consequences of a Belief that AIG constantly does, like with school shootings?
Never mind that the guy they quoted has no clue about the difference between Natural and Artificial selection.
Or their Guilt by association (mixed with the fallacy above!) by always going on about the false "link" between Hitler and Darwin. Never mind that Hitler had actually banned Darwin's book in Germany, that doesn't mean anything to AIG or this "Arthur Keith" guy they quoted.
AIG even goes as far to say that:
| Darwin#8217;s teachings have influenced many in the past, such as Hitler, who tried to get Nazi Germany to conform to evolution. |
Oh yeah. Banning Darwin's works really goes a LOT towards getting Nazi Germany to "conform to evolution"!
The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including:
Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279)
On the other hand, an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed":
c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk. (Blacklist n.d.) |
Fucking Liars.
Or again with their cartoons that portray evolution as the cause behind school shootings.
Speaking of fallacies, isn't circular reasoning?
For the hell of it...PZ Myers has a little to say about Jason Lisle too. |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 09/29/2009 : 19:31:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by the_ignored
Fucking Liars. |
Great catch on the Nazi bannings of Darwinian books! I did not know that. Thank you. Now we all have yet another arrow for our quivers.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 09/29/2009 19:32:21 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/30/2009 : 04:54:44 [Permalink]
|
Excellent, Ig! I had not forgotten about the Hitler non-connection to Darwin, but had about the book-bannings. The Nazis banned just about everything of any literary worth, leaving only the patriotic & religious (but only Christian) crap. Either the creationists don't know this or they chose to commit a Fallacy of Omission. My bet rides on the latter, naming them as liars on a plane with those same Nazis.
And when you get right down to where green snake shat in the sugar cane, AiG's asinine Statement of Faith kind of reminds of the intellectual suppression the Hitler clique tried to put upon the German people. In doing so, the Nazis lost most of their great thinkers of the day, including Einstein. And in following suit, Ken Ham has gained Jason Lisle.
Of course, Einstein was a Jew and would not have survived in Nazi Germany anyway, but I rather doubt he would have survived in a Christian theocracy, either. Nor would many of us; we who have the unmitigated gall to do our own thinking, independent of holy mendacants.
Again, well done, Ig!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2009 : 04:45:40 [Permalink]
|
Dr.. Lisle has promised that this'n is the last'n.
We can only hope....
Anyhow, he's wrapping it up with Ad Hoc – Post Hoc, and off we go on a sort of Creationist Abbot & Costello routine.
| We will close out the logical fallacy series with two of the most common fallacies that occur in arguments about origins: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent. These are formal fallacies because the mistake in reasoning stems from the structure (the form) of the argument. It is well worth the effort to study formal fallacies and their corresponding terminology because these two fallacies are extremely common—perhaps the two most common fallacies committed by evolutionists. |
And not only by evolutionists, who usually have sound science to support cause & effect. Did you ever read one of Dembski's screeds? Oh, and I again remind: There is no argument about “origins,” you dolt! There is only abiogenesis research as yet inconclusive. I piss napalm upon your lame & wretched Straw Man!
Formal deductive arguments can be put into a symbolic notation with letters representing the propositions. Consider the proposition, “If it is snowing, then it must be cold outside.” This proposition has the basic form: “If p, then q.” Any proposition that has that form (“if p, then q”) is called a “hypothetical proposition.” This is because it’s not asserting either p or q; it is merely stating that if p hypothetically were true, then q would have to be true as well. In a hypothetical proposition the first part (p) is called the antecedent, and the second part (q) is called the consequent. In our example, “it is snowing” is the antecedent, and “it must be cold outside” is the consequent.
If an argument has two premises, only one of which is hypothetical, then it is called a “mixed hypothetical syllogism.” Here is an example:
1.If it is snowing, then it must be cold outside.
2.It is snowing.
3.Therefore, it is cold outside.
In this argument, the first premise (if p, then q) is hypothetical. The second premise (p) is not hypothetical; it asserts that it is indeed snowing. And the conclusion is q. Since the second premise affirms that p (the antecedent) is true, this type of argument is called “affirming the antecedent” and is perfectly valid. (Recall, “valid” means that if the premises are true, so is the conclusion). The Latin name for this type of argument is modus ponens, which means the “method of affirming.” |
Ok. I'll buy that, although it sorta Begs the Question of snowing what? And “cold” is a relative term. And yes, I'm just being nasty. “Origins” bullshit does that to me.
Affirming the Consequent
There is a fallacy that is very similar to modus ponens and has this form:
1.If p, then q.
2.q.
3.Therefore, p.
We can see that this is a fallacy by substituting phrases for p and q.
1.If it is snowing, then it must be cold outside.
2.It is cold outside.
3.Therefore, it must be snowing. |
Oh ye gods! Who the hell are you writing for; anyway? Third-graders? Or those unable to to think beyond what to have for lunch? Oh, wait. Riiight....
But clearly just because it is cold outside does not necessarily mean that it must be snowing. So, this argument is invalid. Since the second premise affirms that the consequent (q) is true, this fallacy is called “affirming the consequent.” Here are some common examples:
1.If evolution were true, we would expect to see similarities in DNA of all organisms on earth.
2.We do see similarities in DNA of all organisms on earth.
3.Therefore, evolution is true. |
And now we get down to it.
| The evolutionist making such an argument has failed to recognize that creationists would also expect to see similarities in DNA of all organisms, since the original kinds were made by the same Creator. |
1.There are creatures on the earth.
2.Their DNA is similar.
3.Therefore, God exists. 
Begging the Question; prove a Creator.
1.If the big bang is true, then we would expect to see a cosmic microwave background.
2.We do see a cosmic microwave background.
3.Therefore, the big bang must be true.
This big bang supporter has failed to consider other possible causes for the cosmic microwave background. His argument is an example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent. |
But our pot is not nearly as black as your kettle. Here again the research is inconclusive. Straw Man, Fabrication.
Another mixed hypothetical syllogism has the following form:
1.If p, then q.
2.Not q.
3.Therefore, not p.
This is a valid argument as can be seen by substituting the phrases for the symbols.
1.If it is snowing, then it must be cold outside.
2.It is not cold outside.
3.Therefore, it is not snowing.
Since the second premise denies that the consequent (q) is true, this valid argument is called “denying the consequent” or, in Latin, modus tollens, which means the “method of denying.” |
Ok, we can pretty much agree on that.
Denying the Antecedent
As before, there is an argument that is superficially similar to modus tollens, but is actually a fallacy. It has this form:
4.If p, then q.
5.Not p.
6.Therefore, not q.
We can see that this is fallacious by substituting the phrases for the symbols:
1.If it is snowing, then it must be cold outside.
2.It is not snowing.
3.Therefore, it is not cold outside.
But clearly, it could be cold outside and still not snow. So, the argument is invalid. Since the second premise denies that the antecedent (p) is true, this fallacy is called “denying the antecedent.” Here are some examples:
1.If we found dinosaurs and humans next to each other in the same rock formation, then they must have lived at the same time.
2.We do not find them next to each other in the same rock formation.
3.Therefore, they did not live at the same time. |
Excellent! By George, I think he's got it!
This denies the antecedent and is fallacious. There could be several reasons why dinosaur fossils are not normally found next to human fossils; perhaps dinosaurs and people typically did not live in the same area (as one hypothetical explanation). |
I spoke too soon; he don't got it.
4.If God were to perform a miracle in front of me right now, then that would prove He exists.
5.God is not performing a miracle in front of me right now.
6.Therefore, He doesn’t exist.
Again, this denies the antecedent. God is under no obligation to perform a miracle at the whim of one of His creations. Nor is it likely that the atheist would accept a given miracle as legitimate anyway—preferring to trust that future studies will reveal that the event is explainable by natural law. |
Straw Man, Begging the Question, and Unwarrented Assumption. Also Hand Waving.
Summary
(1) If p, then q. (2) p. (3) Therefore, q.
valid: modus ponens
(1) If p, then q. (2) q. (3) Therefore, p.
fallacy of affirming the consequent
(1) If p, then q. (2) Not q. (3) Therefore, not p.
valid: modus tollens
(1) If p, then q. (2) Not p. (3) Therefore, not q.
fallacy of denying the antecedent
|
Are we almost done with this?
Conclusions
It is the obligation of the Christian to be rational—to pattern our thinking after God’s (Isaiah 55:7–8). We are to be imitators of Him (Ephesians 5:1) and to think in a way that is consistent with God’s logical nature (Romans 12:2).
Not only do we belong to God as his creations, but He has redeemed us by His Son. Our commitment to Christ, therefore, must extend to all aspects of our life. We are to love the Lord with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind (Luke 10:27). |
Most Christians are rational. It is AiG, et al, that is not. Unsupported Assumptions, Hand Waving and Spouting Dogma.
We hope that you have enjoyed the Logical Fallacies series and that the information presented here will help in your defense of the faith. For more information on logical fallacies—including many not covered in this series—consider reading The Ultimate Proof of Creation, which has two chapters on how to spot fallacies. A good textbook on logic or logical fallacies may also be helpful, even if it is not written from a Christian perspective.1 Christian apologist Dr. Greg Bahnsen also has a lecture series on logic and critical thinking that may be very helpful and is available from the Covenant Media Foundation. |
Peddling Books again, mainly his own. Why am I not surprised?
On the other hand, I too hope that this series has encouraged those who have been following it to look for the fallacies. Critical thought, brothers & sisters; critical thought.
Well, that's the last of it. I bid all a goodnight....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/06/2009 08:01:59 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2009 : 08:28:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally quoted by filthy
1.If evolution were true, we would expect to see similarities in DNA of all organisms on earth.
2.We do see similarities in DNA of all organisms on earth.
3.Therefore, evolution is true.
...
1.If the big bang is true, then we would expect to see a cosmic microwave background.
2.We do see a cosmic microwave background.
3.Therefore, the big bang must be true. |
Dr. Lisle got #1 wrong in both cases. If evolution were true, then we must see similarities in the DNA of all organisms on earth. And if the Big Bang were true, we must see the CMB. The necessity of these observations were direct predictions from the theories, and not just something someone dreamt up.
That's the problem with these guys who start with their conclusions and work backwards: they don't understand that the CMB's presence isn't a mere premise of Big Bang theory, but the conclusion of a much larger argument.| The evolutionist making such an argument has failed to recognize that creationists would also expect to see similarities in DNA of all organisms, since the original kinds were made by the same Creator. |
The unstated and unsupported premise to Dr. Lisle's counterargument is that God was forced to make all life similar, which has no Biblical foundation. After all, a single earthly designer can use completely different methods in two different designs, she isn't constrained like Dr. Lisle would constrain God. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2009 : 08:28:57 [Permalink]
|
| The evolutionist making such an argument has failed to recognize that creationists would also expect to see similarities in DNA of all organisms, since the original kinds were made by the same Creator. |
Bzzzzt. Wrong. They would only expect this if they knew the mind of God. The reason one can resonably expect this under evolution is because of common descent. God would not have to operate under such restrictions. Dr Lisle has invented an assumption merely so that it fits his conclusion. Logical fallacy?
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 10/06/2009 : 10:41:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hawks
| The evolutionist making such an argument has failed to recognize that creationists would also expect to see similarities in DNA of all organisms, since the original kinds were made by the same Creator. |
Bzzzzt. Wrong. They would only expect this if they knew the mind of God. The reason one can resonably expect this under evolution is because of common descent. God would not have to operate under such restrictions. Dr Lisle has invented an assumption merely so that it fits his conclusion. Logical fallacy?
|
Logical fallacy indeed. Also, they would only expect this if they had read the works of various biologists, realized that the hill had gotten a lot steeper, and the irrefutable data forced them to modify their apologetics to accept a little of the science. Time was that they would have none of it. Evolution, eh?
It amuses me that Lisle was writing of logical fallacies when he and his organization are so guilty of posing them. Once again though, he is working from a false premise and that in itself is a fallacy. He must twist and turn like a dervish and lie like a Republican pundit to get his point across, yet, if he accepted the ToE it would all become easy. And, heh, he would become unemployed. It's that silly statment of faith thing. It stifles thought and corrupts the imagination.
I await the next batch of nonsense from AiG.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 10/06/2009 10:48:02 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Logical Fallacies according to AiG. Again.
