Before we expend any more time on this, lets take a close look at Colossians actual argument, it saves wandering around and addressing peripheral points.
Colossians said:
The evolutionist, we have pointed out on other threads, builds his platform on a logical redundancy.
An interesting conclusion, it is therefore worth examining the reasons upon which it is based. However it is also worth noting the Fallacy of appealing to a higher authority in the opening sentence of the debate. the use of ...we have is an appeal to a past incident supposedly demonstrating an authoritative we however it is interesting to note the lack of a specific third person of authority to which the appeal is made, rather there is a nebulous we and an unspecified other threads assertion.
Colossians said:
When you ask him how such and such evolved, he will answer you with a description of its current utility, and suggest that those without such utility were culled by natural selection.
This is the reason for the above conclusion. However it is a fairly shallow one. To be of any use, this reason needs to be supported by rebuttal arguments explaining why it is wrong to do so. It is also not entirely accurate as it assumes evolution and natural selection are entirely synonymous. This latter is a dangerous tactic, because if ones shows this is not the case, one falsifies the whole argument.
Colossians said:
But evolutionists have trouble grasping abstract concepts,
Easily falsified. If we can find any evolutionists that can demonstrate an ability to grasp abstract concepts then we seriously undermine the argument. Now Sociology, Criminology and some fields of Psychology are based in part or in whole on the study of qualitative rather than quantitative data. This requires an ability to comprehend abstracts. Philosophy is based entirely on the comprehension of abstracts. So unless the majority of Sociologists, criminologists, psychologists and philosophers are not evolutionists then the argument that evolutionists have trouble grasping abstracts is falsified.
Colossians said:
(The evolutionist, realising there is something missing in his reasoning at this point, but not really wanting to find out what,
Here we see a conclusion with no apparent evidence, furthermore it is obviously flawed because it is based on the failure to understand the central tenant of science. Since science seeks to construct reliable and true knowledge, scientists are unlikely to simply be disinterested in finding a flaw in their reasoning. It also overlooks the fact that the current scientific method is based on falsificationism and therefore is founded on looking for flaws in ones own logic. Furthermore it overlooks the realities of the scientific community, any one familiar with it would know that the scientist who is able to falsify evolution will be a made man. They will be immortalised in text books for generations to come and will have made their name overnight (no more pesky struggling for research grants for them).
Colossians said:
THERE IS NO 10.
Then you won't be upset if we don't believe you. Everything is random anyway.
This is a very odd standpoint for Colossians to take. By boldly proclaiming Everything is random he denies the possibility of God having created. After all if a divinity created, then everything is not random. The statement that everything is random harms creation more than evolution since evolutionary theory can cope with a degree of randomness. It holds that chance mutations occur from random chance, and that these mutations are passed on by breeding of the organism that developed the mutation. Creationism demands an ordered, structured, divine plan and so the lack of randomness. Overlooking this obvious logical flaw in his own argument Colossians gives us reason to question his logic as a whole.
Colossians said:
(PS: You'll have to abandon your attempts to try to unseat me with bluff about ignorance. I am no novice to debate. All you will do is end up with egg on your face. Save yourself the pain).
Here we see a rather painful example of the fallacy of false credentials Colossians attempts to claim that because he is an experienced debater he is an invincible one. However it is clear from his debate strategies that if he is experienced in debate it is not of an academic quality since honest academic debate seeks to minimise or eradicate fallacy use and to support all conclusions with reasons, evidence and data, yet we have seen a lack of reasons given for a number of conclusions and we also see a level of fallacy use that would be unaceptable in any serious academic debate.
Colossians said:
Evolution has no "upward" movement. There is no direction. It is a natural process
Good thing it naturally goes up hey? Whew!
"More" (as in more complex) is 'up', "higher" is most usually 'up', and complex is 'up' from simple.
I don't play "heads I win, tails you lose with anyone".
If you wish to tout the virtues of movement toward higher comlexity in your usual evolution trollop, then you may not abandon ship and transfer to a submarine here.
As if to illustrate my point Collosians demonstrates a fallacy of all rather than some here, since not all evolutionary movement is in what he would term an upwards movement, a fact that others point out during the thread but he chooses to ether ignore, deny without supporting data or simply scoff at.
Colossians said:
Jet Black thinks he is on to something (thinks he can smell his '10' in this debate).
His nose is blocked.
Here Colossians further undermines his own credibility by engaging in exactly the kind of personal attack and pointless witticism that he claims else where in the debate may not be used. Demonstrating that he can not live up to the standards of debate he himself sets.
Colossians said:
It could all reverse tommorrow right?
If members of a species that failed to develop a trait that had evolved in their species due to a copying error and had reproductive success it is possible that the process could begin to go in a direction that a layman may refer to as reversing yes. Of course they would have to stretch a few definitions but then laymen tend to, especially those with an agenda. It would take a lot longer than Tomorrow though.
Colossians said:
Jet Black has told us that evolution might eventually result in its demise: poof!
here we have yet another example of the use of Fallacy of misrepresentation. What Jet Black did say (and rather too clearly for this misrepresentation by Colossians to be accidental) was that evolution could lead in the extinction of a species. What Colossians wants us to believe Jet Black said was that it could lead to the extinction of all life. Remember that is the only way for evolution to end, for ALL LIFE to end.
Colossians said:
Basicallly, we have caught these guys out: they are so annoyed they are abandoning ship and washing their hands of commonly accepted evolutionary concepts.
Another use of the fallacy of misrepresentation. No one is abandoning commonly accepted evolutionary concepts, unless of course he means common misinterpretations by laymen, of evolutionary concepts
Colossians said:
The one who admitted to the existence of '10' has even gone to the purile extent of asking us to define "good". Perhaps her children will remind her of what it is not.
Here Colossians would have us believe that defining what a thing is not is the same as defining what a thing is. In effecting asking us to be complacent in his use of the Fallacy of illegitimate definition.
Colossians said:
But at least the reason these proponents of eccentric reason come on to debate, is consistent with their concept of evolution: they believe there is ultimately, upward direction in everything.
Or as we have called it: '10'.
Fallacy. Several posters have stated that it is not the case that movement is always upwards, but he chose to ignore it or brush it aside by scoffing without presenting any firm data of his own. This was necessary, because to accept it would deny him the ability to continue with the fallacious argument that evolutionists believe in an upward direction in evolution.
Colossians said:
All they need to tell us now is where they got their '10' come from.
(Just to help them who have trouble with abstracts, along, we will remind them that '10' is found in their intuition, and in their perception.
Total fallacy, his initial definition of his hypothetical 10 was an ultimate utility of the current state of an evolved entity. Now he wishes us to accept that political ideology is an ultimate utility of an organism, to do this we have to deny the existence of evolution in organisms that are sub-sentient. Since evolutionary theory does nothing of the sort, this argument is a false one.
Colossians said:
see, you're misrepresenting me. you claimed that I said evolution would lead to its demise, I did not at all.
Oh! I see! Youre playing I didnt say those exact words!
See how long I continue to respond to you when you play that game.
No he is correctly pulling you up on misrepresenting what the words he did use actually mean, if you are not prepared to debate honestly do not debate at all.
Colossians said:
Those are not and never were commonly accepted concepts of biological evolution.
And Elvis never wore white jump suits.
Irrelevant, flippant and evasive. If you wish to say he is wrong show us how he is wrong do not hide behind flippant and silly comments. To refresh your memory you show an argument is wrong by presenting rebuttal evidence.
Colossians said:
Colossians, have you considered the possibility that the reason the evolutionists are telling you that you are misunderstanding evolution might be because you are misunderstanding evolution?
No./
Well you would have more credibility if you had actually considered it but had found the evidence to argue against it. Since you did not even bother to consider the option your credibility is in question. One should always consider the notion that one is wrong, and only proceed if they find the evidence suggests they are not wrong.
I have another 20ish points but it is late, this post is long. The rest can wait till later.
Ghost
