Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

Ancient of Days

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 29, 2017
1,136
860
Mn.
✟138,689.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
And yet my common sense and the common sense of virtually all biological scientists is that evolution is a fact.
Huh. Imagine that. Using the phrase 'common sense' to justify your own lack of knowledge about evolution doesn't work simply because simply saying "It's common sense!" Does. Not. Mean. Squat.

Logical fallacy:
Appeal to Authority
The fallacy of appeal to authority makes the argument that if one credible source believes something that it must be true.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,131
6,385
29
Wales
✟346,788.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Logical fallacy:
Appeal to Authority
The fallacy of appeal to authority makes the argument that if one credible source believes something that it must be true.

Yeah, that's not what it means by an 'appeal to authority'. It's a fact.
 
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It is academia's job today to supplant Bible terms with their own terms.

Expecting an educatee today to use "kind" insted of "genus" is like asking him to use "child" instead of "fetus."
So true!
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,131
6,385
29
Wales
✟346,788.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Ancient of Days

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 29, 2017
1,136
860
Mn.
✟138,689.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
Hence your problem. You all have abandoned “common sense”......

Glad to know you recognize your theory lacks any at all.....

Definition of COMMON SENSE

“sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.”

We already understood the theory had no sound or prudent judgement based on the facts. It’s nice to see evolutionists recognize this as well.

It used to be 'common sense' that the Earth was flat, the center of the universe, and that the Sun revolved around it.

It was actual in-depth observation that told us different.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,131
6,385
29
Wales
✟346,788.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ancient of Days

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 29, 2017
1,136
860
Mn.
✟138,689.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
I'm not using a logical fallacy though. It's a fact. Level of support of evolution = Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2

State that "I'm not using a logical fallacy" Then go on to prove my statement with a logical fallacy. Check... You don't quite understand logical fallacy's. Check...
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
97% of scientists in the world accept that evolution is a fact.
Of that 97%, how many scientists in the world believe it because they were told it was a fact, not because they checked the facts themselves?

If they were told clorophyll is green, will they accept that on faith, or will they isolate chlorophyll and see for themselves?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Heissonear
Upvote 0

Heissonear

Geochemist and Stratigrapher
Supporter
Dec 21, 2011
4,962
982
Lake Conroe
✟156,642.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Of that 97%, how many scientists in the world believe it because they were told it was a fact, not because they checked the facts themselves?

If they were told clorophyll is green, will they accept that on faith, or will they isolate chlorophyll and see for themselves?
Spot on in how things are right now!

I accepted evolution until I checked ito it.

"Teach, where are the fossils between the ones you list"

20180825_201942.jpg


This refers to the 97%. Yes. Based on cojecture my friend. Conjecture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Of that 97%, how many scientists in the world believe it because they were told it was a fact, not because they checked the facts themselves?

If they were told clorophyll is green, will they accept that on faith, or will they isolate chlorophyll and see for themselves?

The sad difference between scientists today and real scientists of the past that discovered all of our fundamental laws of nature. They were multi-disciplinary. Today everyone is specialized, so one must accept as truth what others from other fields have told them as true.....

And so nothing fundamental is ever discovered, but the knowledge of the past is simply improved upon..... With no progress at all in discovering what those fundamentals really are (electric fields, magnetic fields, gravitational fields)..... They can't because each one is specialized and so can only know what others in other fields know (or think they know)......

Rare and gone is the Einstein that can take knowledge from separate distinct fields and combine them, yet even he never understood what those fundamental fields were.... Because he too specialized......

All the greats of the past (Weber, Newton, Ampere, Maxwell, Gauss, Pasteur) were multi-disciplinary scientists. If someone said something they had the skill to check it out for themselves - often finding it to be completely wrong.....

This is why today everything is mysterious matter and missing links that need not worry about falsification.....
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
No one is denying some form of micro-evolution and variation occurs, but there is no evidence that one kind has changed into another kind.

Well, let's discuss this. First of all, can you define "kind"? And can you tell us how we can figure out if two different animals are of the same kind or not?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
And how does that keep that claim from working?

Housecat is Felis, panther is Panthera, and tiger is also Panthera.

What's the problem?

Are there 13 different "kinds" of cat?

Felidae - Wikipedia

And if different kinds can't reproduce, how do you explain a pumapard, a cross between a cougar (genus Puma) and a leopard (genus Panthera)? Doesn't this suggest that the genus=kind idea is flawed?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So the misinformed keep intoning....

species - Dictionary Definition

“In Middle English, species meant "a classification in logic," borrowed from the Latin word meaning "kind or appearance," from the root of specere, "to see."”

Some are simply not even aware of where their own words come from.....

So we've had people arguing that kind is the same thing as genus, now you are arguing that kind means species.

So which is it? How can we take you seriously when you can't even agree among yourselves?
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Logical fallacy:
Appeal to Authority
The fallacy of appeal to authority makes the argument that if one credible source believes something that it must be true.

It's not a fallacy if it's a RELEVANT authority.

If you are very sick and the doctor tells you that you need an operation to live, and your plumber tells you to eat nothing but onions and you'll get better, who are you going to believe?
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,821
45
✟917,256.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Only on paper.
No, in actuality. Transitional forms have traits from multiple groups.

This could be because God has a very odd way of reusing designs and building techniques, or it could be because they are examples of remnants of shared evolutionary ancestry of multiple groups.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are there 13 different "kinds" of cat?

Felidae - Wikipedia
Apparently so, according to that link.
Kylie said:
And if different kinds can't reproduce, how do you explain a pumapard, a cross between a cougar (genus Puma) and a leopard (genus Panthera)? Doesn't this suggest that the genus=kind idea is flawed?
Not at all.

Whatever a genus can do, a kind can do.
 
Upvote 0