Fallacious pro-evolution arguments

Aggie · #**101** 25th February 2008, 04:04 AM

Originally Posted by Reanimation

Not really?
I don't see how he was arguing against creationism per se, just that white hole model. Creationist beliefs differ wildly, it's only one ridiculous model among many.

He does this individually for a lot of different creationist models, and I think this is probably necessary in order to scientifically refute creationism in general. The reason these models exist is as a way to explain away the available evidence, so for someone to show how creationism is false, they would need to show how each of these models isn’t an adequate explanation.

Originally Posted by Reanimation

That's not what I'm trying to say. I was pointing out that the arguments that he has used here have been refuted soundly in the past, by doing some research he'd be able to see that.

So what you’re saying is that the reason you think he isn’t willing to listen to evidence is because instead of researching the problems with these arguments on his own, he’s posting them here for us to tell him what’s wrong with them? I guess you could say the second tactic is a little lazy, but I don’t see how asking the people here to do this research for him indicates an unwillingness to listen to evidence. Some of these arguments are so specialized that I would be very impressed if an 18-year-old were capable of figuring out what’s wrong with them without any help. As someone six years older than Richard, the only area of science where I can do this for all of the most detailed creationist arguments is paleontology.

Reanimation · #**102** 25th February 2008, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by Aggie

He does this individually for a lot of different creationist models, and I think this is probably necessary in order to scientifically refute creationism in general. The reason these models exist is as a way to explain away the available evidence, so for someone to show how creationism is false, they would need to show how each of these models isn’t an adequate explanation.

Or they could show how the accepted scientific theory is supported by the evidence (and explains the evidence that we have), as well as the fact that we can make accurate predictions based upon said theory.

So what you’re saying is that the reason you think he isn’t willing to listen to evidence is because instead of researching the problems with these arguments on his own, he’s posting them here for us to tell him what’s wrong with them? I guess you could say the second tactic is a little lazy, but I don’t see how asking the people here to do this research for him indicates an unwillingness to listen to evidence. Some of these arguments are so specialized that I would be very impressed if an 18-year-old were capable of figuring out what’s wrong with them without any help. As someone six years older than Richard, the only area of science where I can do this for all of the most detailed creationist arguments is paleontology.

It's just that a lot of these arguments have been done before, people have compiled sound refutations of the majority of these arguments which are usually available on the internet.

I'm saying it's fine if he wants to come here to check technical details etc, but for the majority of creationist arguments, there is already plenty of evidence compiled to refute them.