A Logical Fallacy of Evolution

[AnswersInHovind]

I love how evolutionists always point to their "objective" data to prove their point (yet somehow they all have different opinions on this "objective" data) and yet they miss out on the obvious logical impossibilities of evolution as illustrated by the article here.

When you think evolution through, there is no way its possible, and you end up having to mumbo jumbo your way out of the holes evolution digs itself into.

 

[Mallon]

And I love how the only people who disagree with the theory of evolution have zero formal training in the biological sciences.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

And I love how the only people who disagree with the theory of evolution have zero formal training in the biological sciences.

and those who disagree with a historical approach to genesis have zero formal training on hermeneutics.

See? I can deflect too.

 

[Mallon]

and those who disagree with a historical approach to genesis have zero formal training on hermeneutics.

Meredith Kline, Denis Lamoureux, Saint Augustine, John Walton, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Howard van Till, John Polkinghorne, Paul Seeley, and the nearly 13,000 signatories of the Clergy Letter Project all disagree.

 

[Cassiterides]

Meredith Kline, Denis Lamoureux, Saint Augustine, John Walton, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Howard van Till, John Polkinghorne, Paul Seeley, and the nearly 13,000 signatories of the Clergy Letter Project all disagree.

Saint Augustine was a Young Earth Creationist. I think we covered this before, but you still continue to lie.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Meredith Kline, Denis Lamoureux, Saint Augustine, John Walton, Charles Hodge, B.B. Warfield, Howard van Till, John Polkinghorne, Paul Seeley, and the nearly 13,000 signatories of the Clergy Letter Project all disagree.

While the name game is a tonne of fun, it has nothing to do with my original post. You just thought it would be easier than dealing with the epic material therein which obviously leaves you speechless since you had to change the subject to counter it.

 

[Mallon]

Saint Augustine was a Young Earth Creationist. I think we covered this before, but you still continue to lie.

Augustine did not interpret Genesis as history, though, which goes against what AnswersInHovind said.

 

[Mallon]

While the name game is a tonne of fun, it has nothing to do with my original post. You just thought it would be easier than dealing with the epic material therein which obviously leaves you speechless since you had to change the subject to counter it.

How many people on that list have a PhD in biology? What percentage of all biologists do they account for?

Your original post had no meat in it, so it's difficult to provide a meaty reply. Maybe you can elaborate by describing which logical fallacy describes evolution.

 

[Mallon]

I have no idea why Mallon isn't banned, he just uses these threads to troll and attack us creationists.

Ummm... the very reason for this thread was to attack evolutionists. Please don't make a martyr of yourself.

His whole account (avatar, signiture) is all set up to attack creationists.

My avatar is little different from this image from a creationist colouring book:

And my signature is taken verbatim from a creationist blog. Creationists don't need me to embarass them.

That being said, I haven't said anything against forum rules. You have, however, when you said that I am no different from an atheist here:

You claim to be christian, but you are no different than an atheist with your attacks and mockery of creationism.

That's against the flaming rule here:
"Flaming
You will not insult, belittle, mock, use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members, or personally attack other members or groups of members. Do not goad another member or start call-out threads. Do not state or imply that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian. Avoid using sarcasm to attempt any of the above. This flaming rule also applies to public religious figures.

If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button."

 

[Darkness27]

So, what exactly is this "logical fallacy" this thread is based on? What are the "obvious logical impossibilities of evolution" you speak of? Yes, I did read the article, but all the guy does is talk about how he didn't think dogs could have evolved because he didn't think that sex could have evolved based on what some random person said on a blog. If you are going to disprove a scientific theory, at least start with what the theory actually states and not what some random person thinks about it who likely has little evolutionary education.

And just to add what Mallon has said about the clergy letter project, many clergy (like my current pastor for example) don't view Genesis as literal historical history and yet are not part of the letter project. So the actual number of trained clergy who view Genesis as non-literal is actually higher than what is represented by the letter project.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

I have no idea why Mallon isn't banned, he just uses these threads to troll and attack us creationists. His whole account (avatar, signiture) is all set up to attack creationists.

I'll just ignore from now on.

Even if Augustine believed in a young earth, he still have a very figurative approach to Genesis 1. so I'll grant mallon that.

However, I would challenge him to find any modern theologian or scholar who agrees with any of Augustine's interpretations of Genesis 1-3. They are supremely subjective and easily disagreed with (like any symbolic view)

and I don;t think John Walton views Genesis as non-historic. He never mentions that in his Ancient Near East and Old Testmanet thought.

 

[Mallon]

However, I would challenge him to find any modern theologian or scholar who agrees with any of Augustine's interpretations of Genesis 1-3. They are supremely subjective and easily disagreed with (like any symbolic view)

and I don;t think John Walton views Genesis as non-historic. He never mentions that in his Ancient Near East and Old Testmanet thought.

Many, if not most, OT scholars today accept the principle of accommodation as it applies to the Genesis creation account, John Walton included. That is to say they (we) read Genesis literally, but not historically. The creation story is an accommodation to the ancient scientific and historical understanding of the early Hebrew people. This is by no means a minority view among biblical scholars. Read any of the authors I've linked you to before. They're well published in OT scholastic journals. The same doesn't hold for neocreationists published in scientific journals.

 

[Siyha]

Many, if not most, OT scholars today accept the principle of accommodation as it applies to the Genesis creation account, John Walton included. That is to say they (we) read Genesis literally, but not historically. The creation story is an accommodation to the ancient scientific and historical understanding of the early Hebrew people. This is by no means a minority view among biblical scholars. Read any of the authors I've linked you to before. They're well published in OT scholastic journals. The same doesn't hold for neocreationists published in scientific journals.

I would disagree and say that the majority of OT scholars see it as historical, but not literal, rather than the other way around.

The semantics get tricky, although I think we both probably mean the same thing in essence.

But its important to understand that the early readers of Genesis did see it as an historical account. But that does not mean that its historicity is its essence.

You also need to realize that references do no good to a creationist.
If you find a scholar who makes a good argument against a literal creation, a fundamentalist can easily dismiss it by blaming it on, "liberal theology" or "post modernism" or something else. So somebody like John Walton never needs to be dealt with because he is part of the "liberal agenda" or something equally as absurd and deflective.

V. Philips Long has a very good introduction book to understanding ancient historical narratives. Sometimes we try to hard to make a text either literal or non-literal, historic or non-historic, without remembering that we are approaching these terms with a modern mindset, and the ancient world had no care for them at all.

Rather than saying Genesis is symbolic or allegorical, why not show the difference in the message between how Creationists approach it, and how you approach it? That is the best way to illustrate the benefit of a particular hermeneutical method.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

Many, if not most, OT scholars today accept the principle of accommodation as it applies to the Genesis creation account, John Walton included. That is to say they (we) read Genesis literally, but not historically. The creation story is an accommodation to the ancient scientific and historical understanding of the early Hebrew people. This is by no means a minority view among biblical scholars. Read any of the authors I've linked you to before. They're well published in OT scholastic journals. The same doesn't hold for neocreationists published in scientific journals.

Well that is a good way to convince people you are right. "Go read these people. They will agree with me." Put the burden of research of somebody else.
Well I've read John Walton, and he never says that. Maybe instead of overarching generalizations without specific examples, you can show me where one of the people you mentioned specifically disagrees with a creationist view. Seeing as you are wrong about John Walton, why should I waste my time looking at the other ones?

 

[AnswersInHovind]

and still in the last 2 pages, nobody has been able to address the OP..... go evolutionism!

 

[laconicstudent]

My avatar is little different from this image from a creationist colouring book:

And my signature is taken verbatim from a creationist blog. Creationists don't need me to embarass them.

Part of my soul just died.

 

[Darkness27]

and still in the last 2 pages, nobody has been able to address the OP..... go evolutionism!

I did address the OP (you ignored it), which was essentially a link to a poorly written paper by someone who doesn't understand evolution very well. You have talked about logical fallacies, but neither you nor your link has specified any; logical fallacies have names. On top of that all I did see was straw-man arguments against evolution, a logical fallacy of its own.

So I'll ask again, what is the logical fallacy that the thread is suppose to be about? Or, what are the logical impossibilities that evolution brings to the table? If they are as "obvious" as you claim, it shouldn't be a problem to concisely lay them out so we all know exactly what you are talking about.

 

[laconicstudent]

So I'll ask again, what is the logical fallacy that the thread is suppose to be about?

Contradicting the YEC view of Genesis, obviously!

 

[philadiddle]

There's no reason to respond to the article in the OP because it attacks a strawman version of evolution. Find a science textbook (many are available on google books) online and show me where it describes evolution happening in the same way as the ignorant article you linked to.

 

[Mallon]

Well that is a good way to convince people you are right. "Go read these people. They will agree with me." Put the burden of research of somebody else.

Oh, you mean like what you did in your original post by linking to another site rather presenting an argument yourself?

Well I've read John Walton, and he never says that.

Read his book The Lost World of Genesis One. That's his entire argument: that Genesis 1 presents an ancient cosmology, accommodated to the ancient understanding of the Hebrew people. This is a common OT hermeneutic, despite what you seem to think.