Invalid Arguments

[gaara4158]

In 2017 100,000 strains were completed.

In human equivalency that would be 12,000,000 years of evolution for the human race. E. coli, like humans, can live for hundreds of years. The process was accelerated in the laboratory. So basically after 12 million years of evolution, we ended up with what we started with. E. coli with no more genetic complexity than before. Supposedly we went from a missing common ancestor to fully human and chimp in less than a couple million. What, and you can’t get past a single cell in 12?

And in the end ended up with bacteria, no more advanced then what he started with. The test is still ongoing. Want to make a bet that in another 100,000 strains, or 12 million years of evolution, we end up with just more E. coli? How confident in your beliefs are you? I am quite confident in mine.

You will never get from simple to complex until a genetic engineer splices the genes and creates it....

Evolution doesn’t happen at a fixed pace. A million years of evolution in one population might yield dramatic changes and in another population none at all. The pace of change is dependent on environmental, genetic, and social factors. Great White sharks, for example, haven’t changed in 16 million years. There has been no pressure to do so. They’re already apex predators. So having bacteria remain the same after a large number of generations isn’t problematic for the theory of evolution, your flailing protestations notwithstanding.

 

[durangodawood]

How is the definition of God as has been understood in multiple religions for at least 2000 years special pleading?

Nothing wrong with it as an article of faith.

But it has no power at all in an argument. (Topic being "invalid arguments")

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Evolution doesn’t happen at a fixed pace. A million years of evolution in one population might yield dramatic changes and in another population none at all. The pace of change is dependent on environmental, genetic, and social factors. Great White sharks, for example, haven’t changed in 16 million years. There has been no pressure to do so. They’re already apex predators. So having bacteria remain the same after a large number of generations isn’t problematic for the theory of evolution, your flailing protestations notwithstanding.

Yah I know, nothing is problematic for evolution.

Not lack of evolution - why it just happens we’re we can’t observe it...

Not lack of common ancestors - why we just havnt found any at all, is all...

Not the fact that every fossil remains the same from the oldest to the youngest found for that type - why we just havnt found all fossils yet...

Not the fact that Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff only Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate do we see a new form, the Chinook - why that’s caused by man, never mind so was every plant and E. coli in the lab...

Not two billion year old bacteria that didn’t evolve - why they adapted to their environment, even if the environment is nothing like it was two billion years ago...

Not DNA tested for every finch alive showing they have been interbreeding from the start - ok, so Darwin was wrong, but they are still separate species despite we have to ignore the deffinition of subspecies....

Not DNA causing the human phylogenic tree to have to be rewritten - why it’s still correct, even if it’s wrong...

Yah, your right, nothing is problematic, epicycles can account for about any observational discrepancy.."..

 

[gaara4158]

Yah I know, nothing is problematic for evolution.

Not lack of evolution - why it just happens we’re we can’t observe it...

Not lack of common ancestors - why we just havnt found any at all, is all...

Not the fact that every fossil remains the same from the oldest to the youngest found for that type - why we just havnt found all fossils yet...

Not the fact that Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff only Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate do we see a new form, the Chinook - why that’s caused by man, never mind so was every plant and E. coli in the lab...

Not two billion year old bacteria that didn’t evolve - why they adapted to their environment, even if the environment is nothing like it was two billion years ago...

Not DNA tested for every finch alive showing they have been interbreeding from the start - ok, so Darwin was wrong, but they are still separate species despite we have to ignore the deffinition of subspecies....

Not DNA causing the human phylogenic tree to have to be rewritten - why it’s still correct, even if it’s wrong...

Yah, your right, nothing is problematic, epicycles can account for about any observational discrepancy.."..

Produce a rabbit in Precambrian rock and we have a problem.

 

[Skreeper]

Not the fact that Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff only Mastiff. Only when Husky and Mastiff mate do we see a new form, the Chinook - why that’s caused by man, never mind so was every plant and E. coli in the lab...

You really love Chinooks, don't you? I suggest you change your name to "justachinookseeker" because that seems more fitting.

 

[AV1611VET]

(I drop in now and then to let old friends know that I'm still faithful to my beliefs).

We'll leave the light on for ya!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You really love Chinooks, don't you? I suggest you change your name to "justachinookseeker" because that seems more fitting.

You really love irrelevant responses, don’t you. I suggest you change your name to “Irrelevant” because that seems entirely fitting.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Produce a rabbit in Precambrian rock and we have a problem.

Why, you’d just ignore it like you do the other problems.

 

[gaara4158]

Why, you’d just ignore it like you do the other problems.

On the contrary, that would turn evolution completely upside down. The othe “problems” you listed are either misunderstandings on your part or just not true. That’s not my problem. Again, this just boils down to your incredulity. Yawn.

 

[Skreeper]

You really love irrelevant responses, don’t you. I suggest you change your name to “Irrelevant” because that seems entirely fitting.

Someone like you does not deserve a meaningful response since based on your responses so far you think of yourself as the expert in every field anyway.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Someone like you does not deserve a meaningful response since based on your responses so far you think of yourself as the expert in every field anyway.

No, just capable of thought without being told what to think.

So, experts got to be experts by reading, but no one else can read and become an expert unless they have a piece of paper and believe the exact same thing you do?

I certainly don’t claim to be an expert, because such a thing doesn’t exist. If they were experts they wouldn’t have to keep changing the theory every time a new discovery falsified the old one.

Astronomy is one of the worst. Every time they look a discovery falsifies their theory, but they just add more exotic matter no one can explain, change the epicycles a little and vola, on as if nothing had ever happened to falsify their beliefs.

Every single observation since the space age has been surprise after surprise. Surprising that correct theories can’t predict anything correctly....

And evolution. Instead of exotic matter you just add common ancestors that can’t be found, ignore that every type of fossil found remains the same for every one found of that type, and add epicycles to get past the problems. Ignoring the problems or attempting to trivialize them doesn’t make them go away. At least Darwin allowed for a falsification of his theory, but you all won’t let that happen either, even if those missing graduated forms are still missing.

His entire belief started in the incorrect assumption finches were reproductively isolated, and so thought they were separate species. After DNA testing we find they never were reproductively isolated at all. But do they correct his mistaken classification? No, of course not...

Error after uncorrected error, epicycles built upon epicycles constitutes the ToE.

 

[Skreeper]

No, just capable of thought without being told what to think.

So, experts got to be experts by reading, but no one else can read and become an expert unless they have a piece of paper and believe the exact same thing you do?

I certainly don’t claim to be an expert, because such a thing doesn’t exist. If they were experts they wouldn’t have to keep changing the theory every time a new discovery falsified the old one.

Astronomy is one of the worst. Every time they look a discovery falsifies their theory, but they just add more exotic matter no one can explain, change the epicycles a little and vola, on as if nothing had ever happened to falsify their beliefs.

Every single observation since the space age has been surprise after surprise. Surprising that correct theories can’t predict anything correctly....

And evolution. Instead of exotic matter you just add common ancestors that can’t be found, ignore that every type of fossil found remains the same for every one found of that type, and add epicycles to get past the problems. Ignoring the problems or attempting to trivialize them doesn’t make them go away. At least Darwin allowed for a falsification of his theory, but you all won’t let that happen either, even if those missing graduated forms are still missing.

His entire belief started in the incorrect assumption finches were reproductively isolated, and so thought they were separate species. After DNA testing we find they never were reproductively isolated at all. But do they correct his mistaken classification? No, of course not...

Error after uncorrected error, epicycles built upon epicycles constitutes the ToE.

I hope you're feeling better after your little rant. But I'm gonna stick with what the scientific community has to say about the ToE instead of the random know-it-all creationist.

Your ilk is just white noise for me anyway just like moon truthers and flat-earthers.

 

[Silmarien]

Nothing wrong with it as an article of faith.

But it has no power at all in an argument. (Topic being "invalid arguments")

It's not really an article of faith, though. Theology doesn't say that God could be an object inside the universe but we're going to take it on faith that he's not. Theology says that God is, by definition, wholely Other. (Or almost so, depending on the religion.)

I don't think it's an argument in and of itself, but it does come up in arguments. You can't talk about whether the intelligibility of the universe points to something greater than itself or whether reason requires that there be some necessarily existing being that the universe is contingent upon without defining God as Beyond Being.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I hope you're feeling better after your little rant. But I'm gonna stick with what the scientific community has to say about the ToE instead of the random know-it-all creationist.

Your ilk is just white noise for me anyway just like moon truthers and flat-earthers.

Yah sure, Potlomy and all the other scientists were just as convinced they were right. As a matter of fact people said the same thing back then as you are saying now. They stuck with the scientific community then too, and everybody was wrong, except the then crackpots, that turned out not to be the crackpots after all.

It’s the same in every generation when false beliefs are challenged with scientific evidence...

And going with the majority for no other reason than they are the majority is a fallacy in itself.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Coupled with your argument of authority.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia

So your argument is an invalid argument. As least you are in the correct thread....

 

[Skreeper]

Yah sure, Potlomy and all the other scientists were just as convinced they were right. As a matter of fact people said the same thing back then as you are saying now. They stuck with the scientific community then too, and everybody was wrong, except the then crackpots, that turned out not to be the crackpots after all.

It’s the same in every generation when false beliefs are challenged with scientific evidence...

And going with the majority for no other reason than they are the majority is a fallacy in itself.

Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

Coupled with your argument of authority.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia

So your argument is an invalid argument. As least you are in the correct thread....

Great, we can add logical fallacies to the pile of things you know nothing about.

The argument from authority is only a fallacy when you use an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.

Since evolutionary biologists are relevant to the ToE my point isn't fallacious.

And I never claimed that the ToE is true because the majority believes it is. I just noted that I trust the majority of experts who spend years and decades studying the topic over a random know-it-all creationst on the internet.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Great, we can add logical fallacies to the pile of things you know nothing about.

The argument from authority is only a fallacy when you use an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument.

Since evolutionary biologists are relevant to the ToE my point isn't fallacious.

And I never claimed that the ToE is true because the majority believes it is. I just noted that I trust the majority of experts who spend years and decades studying the topic over a random know-it-all creationst on the internet.

Since the authorities have been wrong - Darwin believing the finches were reproductively isolated. 98% of the genome non-functional. Missing common ancestors at every single split, besides claims they would be found. E. coli remaining E. coli, just as every fossil remains the same.

Your authorities aren’t that much of an authority. Yah, they spent years telling us all about the coelacanth too. They spend quite a lot of time telling us things that years later don’t end up being true at all.

Not that you’d ever bother to go back and look at all the claims of fact that ended up being not fact, but fantasy.

“It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.”

Based upon your experts track record over the years of always being wrong several years later, we don’t agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.

 

[Speedwell]

Who is Potlomy?

 

[keith99]

How do you deal with mathematical axioms? They're unfalsifiable. Laws of logic? Unfalsifiable.

Actually mathematical axioms are falsifiable. If an axiom can be shown to lead to contradictory conclusions it has then been shown to be false. This has occurred.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who is Potlomy?

He had an elaborate series of mathmatical epicycles built to explain the earth at the center of the solar system, which explained quite well the observations of the other planets from this belief. Although wrong, it was the scientific belief at the time.

Deferent and epicycle - Wikipedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Actually mathematical axioms are falsifiable. If an axiom can be shown to lead to contradictory conclusions it has then been shown to be false. This has occurred.

Like division by zero for infinities and black holes?