Discussion in 'The Sanctuary' started by TheBigPayback, Aug 7, 2013.
Without watching the video, I can assume already that it involves...
* Misunderstanding actual science, and thus utilizing the strawman fallacy.
* Utilizes the logical fallacy of "I don't know, so it must be God."
* Utilizes the logical fallacy of moving the goalpost.
* Pointing out how "correct" the bible is because of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.
Am I right?
I cant agree to the claims by atheists that Im one of that community-Neil DeGrasse Tyson
No they let university professors attempt to prove evolution as being scientific
well at this moment right now im the only one who watched the whole thing,
and yes alice the jist of his major point is that throughout history, everytime man reaches an " i dont know" point that they say it must be god.
Id say the jist is that until science provides observable evidence for darwinian evolution - its proponents are believers, believing through blind faith. which sounds familiar
thats definately not the jist of it
The evidence is there, you just don't want to look at it.
It's like that Non Sequitor comic that was in the Sunday paper. You're getting rained on, I'm telling you you're getting rained on. There is rain on you. But then you say, "No, there is no rain."
Up until about 28 minutes it was really good and a good debate. Then hell and the bible and the interviewers beliefs came into play instead of his christian logic. But until 28 minutes or so it was really good.
And also, if one species changes within an observable lifespan, then species could evolve continously over millions of years to become a completely different animal, though with hereditary traits.
rainbows man, fuckin rainbows.
you never see where one color ends and another starts, they blend in.....
he was provided with examples of evolution in action in the video, and he dismissed them on the grounds that it wasn't a 'change of kinds.' either he doesn't know what evolution means, or he's a liar. bacteria changing (genetically) into a new and improved form of bacteria is evolution. any adaption which happens at the genetic level is evolution. period.
he also ruled out any evidence for actual macro-evolution on the grounds that if it happens over millions of years, we can't observe it. maybe you can't sit there and watch it happen, but you most certainly can observe it, albeit indirectly. that is how most science is done. his only apparent rebuttal to the fossil record was that the random college students he quizzed couldn't rattle off a list of specific fossils that demonstrated macro-evolution. of course, he had pz myers (an actual biologist) there, yet i didn't see him ask him that question. probably because like most creationists, he wasn't actually interested in getting a real answer.
Evolution wins via KO (logic)
He dismissed it based on darwins definition of a change of kinds. thats what he was asking. not to show ways in which species adapt.
that's not darwin's definition. it's a creationist straw man. creationists are the only people you ever hear talking about 'kinds' as if it were a biological classification.
that is evolution, by definition. how do you think a species adapts?
And that in itself is a strawman
you know as well as I what the point of contention within the theory of evolution actually is. and that is that there is not, and will never be a change of kind from one thing to another.
Not speciation not adaptation. these types of evolutionary processes are not disputed by anyone. Of which ur quite aware.
Separate names with a comma.