Those interested in the foundational fallacies of Evolution.

[Freedom777]

This is a discussion on these video's or the audio's
These video's are from a chemist named Dr.A.E Wilder Smith Addressing the foundational fallacy of
1.spontaneous generation (this is basicly atheistic)
2.first living cell to man evolution (progressive creation and theistic evolution also called macro-evolution.
This is simple for the layman to understand.

This is some of Wilder's accomplisments
Creationist, Chemist, & Lecturer
Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
NATO three-star general
Deceased
Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film and video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be

This adresses spontaneous generation. Is Biogenesis Scientific?http://thewordfortoday.org/wildersmith_nav.html
And this one addresses. macro-evolution. Evolution or Creation. There are some others that hit on the subject also. I think this would be good for discussion.
God Bless, Freedom777

 

[Underdog77]

Those are some pretty impressive credentials there. I wonder what others will have to say in opposition.

 

[Asar'el]

Those are some pretty impressive credentials there. I wonder what others will have to say in opposition.

To some, all credentials of a believer are invalid.
Yet to others (like me), believer is the highest credential.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Those are some pretty impressive credentials there. I wonder what others will have to say in opposition.

What makes me question his credentials is I don't see anything that would have taught him evolutionary biology. The inclusion of abiogenesis as part of evolution makes me believe that he does not understand what evolution actually is (evolution only describes what happens after life gets started).

 

[Freedom777]

I was hoping for a discussion on his video's. Maybe i was hoping for to much?

 

[DynamicDrummer]

What makes me question his credentials is I don't see anything that would have taught him evolutionary biology. The inclusion of abiogenesis as part of evolution makes me believe that he does not understand what evolution actually is (evolution only describes what happens after life gets started).

WHO GIVES A CARE ABOUT HIS "CREDENTIALS"? The guy asked you a question! If someone came up to you in the street and asked you these same things, would you start asking him about his credentials? If you are reasonable, you'll say 'no'. Whenever a YEC asks a Theistic Evolutionist a tough question that I KNOW they will either have to blabber their way through or say "I don't know", they start in on how this "ignorant YEC" doesn't know what he is talking about. I do not understand this. When you say that "he does not understand what evolution actually is", just give the guy a break man.

 

[gluadys]

I was hoping for a discussion on his video's. Maybe i was hoping for to much?

Well there is not much to discuss when both "foundational fallacies" are based on a misunderstanding of evolution.

Maybe you should ask some questions about why these fallacies are fallacies about evolution rather than fallacies of evolution.

 

[PaladinValer]

WHO GIVES A CARE ABOUT HIS "CREDENTIALS"?

If he doesn't have the proper authority to give a professional opinion (meaning the "scientist" quoted in the OP's post), then appealing to him/her as an authority is faulty and illogical. In the Court Room, you must establish that an individual to give professional opinions about a subject actually has expertise. Otherwise, the person isn't fit to give such opinions. It is known as the Fallacy of Appealing to Authority.

The guy asked you a question! If someone came up to you in the street and asked you these same things, would you start asking him about his credentials?

I would ask where the individual got his/her information and then look it up. If things didn't "match," then I would of course dismiss it. I would be a poor historian if I simply took everything I read in my sources as word of mouth as true and factual history. I would be a poor researcher if I did the same too. I'm surprised you haven't learned this in school: always check your sources for validity.

If you are reasonable, you'll say 'no'. Whenever a YEC asks a Theistic Evolutionist a tough question that I KNOW they will either have to blabber their way through or say "I don't know", they start in on how this "ignorant YEC" doesn't know what he is talking about. I do not understand this. When you say that "he does not understand what evolution actually is", just give the guy a break man.

Because unlike most people, TEs make sure what information they get is authentic. If you were to receive a "factoid" that wasn't true or authentic, would you still believe it? Or site it as a fact in a research paper? Of course not!

That's a major difference that I've noticed between YECs and TEs over nearly 9 years of observation: YECs accept whatever "evidence" that fits into their beliefs without actually studying it to make sure it is authentic while TEs make sure everything they learn is authentic and valid. It is why TEs have always had the upper hand in all debates and what won all debates; they keep having to correct YEC arguments that rely on faulty data or sources.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Listening to his lecture, I see that his ideas on information are a bit off.

To create something specific, one does need specific information to create a specific thing, but evolution doesn't have a specific goal in mind, so natural selection is sufficient to create information about whatever results.

He did well at naming the laws of thermodynamics, but the connection cut out for the second time during his application of them, so I don't know whether he applies them correctly.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

To some, all credentials of a believer are invalid.
Yet to others (like me), believer is the highest credential.

If I am looking for a good opinion about evolutionary biology, I would ask someone who has had some training on the subject. I wouldn't ask a pharmacologist/organic chemist unless they had some research experience where they drifted into the field after their formal training.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

WHO GIVES A CARE ABOUT HIS "CREDENTIALS"? The guy asked you a question! If someone came up to you in the street and asked you these same things, would you start asking him about his credentials? If you are reasonable, you'll say 'no'. Whenever a YEC asks a Theistic Evolutionist a tough question that I KNOW they will either have to blabber their way through or say "I don't know", they start in on how this "ignorant YEC" doesn't know what he is talking about. I do not understand this. When you say that "he does not understand what evolution actually is", just give the guy a break man.

I don't give those claiming expertise breaks when their expertise fails on basic things.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

If he doesn't have the proper authority to give a professional opinion (meaning the "scientist" quoted in the OP's post), then appealing to him/her as an authority is faulty and illogical. In the Court Room, you must establish that an individual to give professional opinions about a subject actually has expertise. Otherwise, the person isn't fit to give such opinions. It is known as the Fallacy of Appealing to Authority.


I would ask where the individual got his/her information and then look it up. If things didn't "match," then I would of course dismiss it. I would be a poor historian if I simply took everything I read in my sources as word of mouth as true and factual history. I would be a poor researcher if I did the same too. I'm surprised you haven't learned this in school: always check your sources for validity.


Because unlike most people, TEs make sure what information they get is authentic. If you were to receive a "factoid" that wasn't true or authentic, would you still believe it? Or site it as a fact in a research paper? Of course not!

That's a major difference that I've noticed between YECs and TEs over nearly 9 years of observation: YECs accept whatever "evidence" that fits into their beliefs without actually studying it to make sure it is authentic while TEs make sure everything they learn is authentic and valid. It is why TEs have always had the upper hand in all debates and what won all debates; they keep having to correct YEC arguments that rely on faulty data or sources.

You are so full of it. You think you are so "intellectually superior" to me or anyone who asks you a question. Don't give me this bull about "we make sure everything they learn is authentic and valid" while we "YECs accept whatever 'evidence' that fits into thier beliefs without actually studying it". That is such a lie. That's why I like to ask you all why don't you go out and start winning people to Christ by preaching your message to all the "heretical" churches now-a-days? That's why I'd like to meet you face to face and debate you because this doesn't get anyone anywhere.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You will have to be a little patient, the video is 1:17 long, and i find it rather boring and wrong headed, simply put he is building a strawman. i'm only at :45 into it now.

His argument begins with a metaphor that living things are machines, then criticizes biologists for they ought to know that all machines are designed and that information for their design is not internal to them but external in the mind of the maker. but opps, it was his metaphor, it merely means that the metaphor doesn't work. in fact, dna is the instructions for the recipe of living things and it is internal to the cell. o'well....

the next 30 minutes is building a strawman. this evolutionist who, in AiG's memorial words, proposes a goo to you via the zoo due to random chance alone.

the big problem is that he is attacking abiogenesis, not evolution which requires a fully functional inheritance system of some type just to get started. what he has in mind is an evolutionISM that includes the evolutionary system, abiogenesis and a philosophy of naturalism that posits a sufficiency of natural causes. none of which is in fact part of scientific evolutionary theory which starts with an operational inheritance system and proposes that the diversity of living things can be explained as a system of common descent via mutation.

interestingly his "into slots and stays there" is exactly what the differential survival of mutations proposes. many mutations to crucial genes kill the offspring that contain them, often in early development. "slot in" is DEATH. death is not reversible, contrary to the way he is so fond of pointing out, life is not in fact at heart reversible. this idea is the genetic fitness landscape model of evolutionary theory, most mutations decrease environmental fitness, they are downhill on the fitness landscape, they are not reversible, especially for the carrier of that mutated genes.


i hope to get to the rest of the video soon, however it is not high on my list because his arguments are so poor and uninteresting. maybe you can recommend another of these videos to watch?

 

[PaladinValer]

No, I am not full of it. If you don't like the fact that appealing to unauthentic sources is a logical fallacy, then that isn't my fault but your own. It is also our's when I point out logical fallacies and you have the nerve to insult and ridicule me for it. Sorry, I don't bend to your will nor shall I withdraw any of my statements simply because you don't like it.

And yes, TEs do make sure everything is authentic. We are science-minded folks and we know the scientific method. We put it into practice. We are also rather scholarly; I myself must be, being a historian and a future teacher.

And I can no longer count of my hands or feet how many times YECs have sited frauds, unauthentic sources, and used twisted psuedo-science in order to "disprove" evolution. It is an unfortunate common occurance among them and pardon me for saying this but it is also a tiresome one too. Perhaps it is because you haven't been posting as long as I or the others here have on message boards or chatted in chat rooms, but after nearly a decade myself, I'm noticed quite a bit, and my findings are not encouraging.

In addition, I didn't call anyone a heretic or even imply it. If you want to put words into my mouth, by all means go right ahead. The only problem is that YECism isn't a heresy but bad science. Perhaps you should learn what a heresy is before you accuse others of calling people heretics or calling ideas heresies? The research on your part would do you very well.

And if I sound "intelligently superior" because I point out logical fallacies and at least make sure my sources are valid, then that is a compliment I am more than happy to accept.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

No, I am not full of it. If you don't like the fact that appealing to unauthentic sources is a logical fallacy, then that isn't my fault but your own. It is also our's when I point out logical fallacies and you have the nerve to insult and ridicule me for it. Sorry, I don't bend to your will nor shall I withdraw any of my statements simply because you don't like it.

And yes, TEs do make sure everything is authentic. We are science-minded folks and we know the scientific method. We put it into practice. We are also rather scholarly; I myself must be, being a historian and a future teacher.

And I can no longer count of my hands or feet how many times YECs have sited frauds, unauthentic sources, and used twisted psuedo-science in order to "disprove" evolution. It is an unfortunate common occurance among them and pardon me for saying this but it is also a tiresome one too. Perhaps it is because you haven't been posting as long as I or the others here have on message boards or chatted in chat rooms, but after nearly a decade myself, I'm noticed quite a bit, and my findings are not encouraging.

In addition, I didn't call anyone a heretic or even imply it. If you want to put words into my mouth, by all means go right ahead. The only problem is that YECism isn't a heresy but bad science. Perhaps you should learn what a heresy is before you accuse others of calling people heretics or calling ideas heresies? The research on your part would do you very well.

And if I sound "intelligently superior" because I point out logical fallacies and at least make sure my sources are valid, then that is a compliment I am more than happy to accept.

Alright, give me one YEC who has used good science to back up his claims. I can think of a couple, like Carl Baugh. And remember I used to believe in evolution. Don't think that I haven't seen both sides to the story. And by the way, how do you mediate between a group of Atheists who stand on evolution and a group of Christians who stand on the literal 6-day account of Genesis? As far as I'm concerned, you'd be supporting both sides to an extent. So you are science-minded, huh? You know what's up? Hey, I like science, I really do, but evolution only happens in your imagination. Evolution is not science but a religion. Mine is a religion, so why don't you admit that yours is too? You might say all the evidence points to evolution and away from a literal 6-day account of Genesis. Let me see this evidence. I will be willing to look through it even though I probably have seen it already and it made me start doubting this "sacred" evolution theory I held onto. Also, there is no way that someone could come to the conclusion that God used millions of years to get us here by reading Genesis. And if you say that is because they haven't been educated well enough, then what you are trying to say is, "I'm smart and they are dumb." And by the way, I've heard some people say that all Dr. Kent Hovind tries to do is get his tapes out and make money. Really? I believe he said in one of his seminars that his tapes are non-copyrighted and that you can make copies, send them back and get a full refund. I don't care if you believe in evolution or not, just don't call it science. By the way, my friend Isacc asked his Biology AP, when they were studying evolution theory, "How did vertebrae evolve?" And the teacher gave Isacc a really evil/mean look and he said "Save your questions till AFTER class!" If evolution had good science, why didn't this Advanced Placement Biology teacher answer him? (And by the way, he never did answer my friend)

 

[Dark_Lite]

Hey, I like science, I really do, but evolution only happens in your imagination. Evolution is not science but a religion.

Wrong and no.

 

[PaladinValer]

Evolution isn't a religion. By you saying this, you've shown us how little you truly know of it.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

ok i finished the video.

he has one major idea, his creation machine with the problem of reversibility.

it's nothing more than a straw man, the answer to huxley is that infinity is a really long time, in fact, 12 billion years is an infinitesimal % of a countable infinity.

there are several nice sites on the monkey typewriter problem.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Infinite monkey theorem
will get you into the literature.


but he doesnt get into the fundamental question that evolution proposes a ratcheting mechanism that he dismisses out of hand where things have a differential in vs out equilibrium. this is the climbing of mt improbable illustration that dawkins uses so effectively.

all in all, a nice study in presentation, he is a good and effective preacher, but he doesnt persuade based on the material. first half is directed at abiogenesis, second half at the ad hominem arguments of evolutionists directed at creationists and how bad this is. i dont see anything extraordinary to discuss....

 

[ThePhoenix]

Alright, give me one YEC who has used good science to back up his claims. I can think of a couple, like Carl Baugh. And remember I used to believe in evolution. Don't think that I haven't seen both sides to the story. And by the way, how do you mediate between a group of Atheists who stand on evolution and a group of Christians who stand on the literal 6-day account of Genesis? As far as I'm concerned, you'd be supporting both sides to an extent. So you are science-minded, huh? You know what's up? Hey, I like science, I really do, but evolution only happens in your imagination. Evolution is not science but a religion. Mine is a religion, so why don't you admit that yours is too? You might say all the evidence points to evolution and away from a literal 6-day account of Genesis. Let me see this evidence. I will be willing to look through it even though I probably have seen it already and it made me start doubting this "sacred" evolution theory I held onto. Also, there is no way that someone could come to the conclusion that God used millions of years to get us here by reading Genesis. And if you say that is because they haven't been educated well enough, then what you are trying to say is, "I'm smart and they are dumb." And by the way, I've heard some people say that all Dr. Kent Hovind tries to do is get his tapes out and make money. Really? I believe he said in one of his seminars that his tapes are non-copyrighted and that you can make copies, send them back and get a full refund. I don't care if you believe in evolution or not, just don't call it science. By the way, my friend Isacc asked his Biology AP, when they were studying evolution theory, "How did vertebrae evolve?" And the teacher gave Isacc a really evil/mean look and he said "Save your questions till AFTER class!" If evolution had good science, why didn't this Advanced Placement Biology teacher answer him? (And by the way, he never did answer my friend)

Out of curiousity, did Isaac bother to go up after class and ask? Because the spinal cord is an easy one. The various stages are all around us. For instance worms have a very primitive nerve cord with no brain center, and sharks have a spinal cord with a cartilige surrounding it. You can see that the nerve cord formed to allow the body to direct movment in various areas, and that eventually the nerve cord began to form protection to save itself from being cut. Bone>Cartilege>Nothing, so the evolutionary chain went that way.

 

[DynamicDrummer]

Out of curiousity, did Isaac bother to go up after class and ask? Because the spinal cord is an easy one. The various stages are all around us. For instance worms have a very primitive nerve cord with no brain center, and sharks have a spinal cord with a cartilige surrounding it. You can see that the nerve cord formed to allow the body to direct movment in various areas, and that eventually the nerve cord began to form protection to save itself from being cut. Bone>Cartilege>Nothing, so the evolutionary chain went that way.

Yes he did go up after class and ask and all the teacher said was we don't really know and just to keep his questions to himself. Then my friend Isacc said, "So you are teaching us something that you don't understand?" You can call up my friend Isacc and ask him if you don't believe me. I'll give you his number if you PM for it.