Gettin' Banned - Our favorite moments

quote:

---

quote:

---

Some standard logical fallacies by the evolutionist

​

'DNA says' or 'rocks say'

​

DNA cant speak, rocks cant speak.

---

​

OK, you start out with one that is plain dumb.

​

What you have there are informal ways of saying "DNA evidence indicates/supports" and "Geologic evidence indicates/supports".

​

quote:

---

'99.78% of biologists believe in evolution'

​

94.6% of the time the statistic is just made up (as mine is here). 2 logical fallacies (maybe 3) in one sentence. Appeal to majority fallacy and equivocation fallacy with the 'e' word (evolutionists never define which definition of the 'e' word). The 3rd might could be considered ipse dixit bare assertion logical fallacy.

---

​

Setting aside what the precise percentage is, it is a fact that the vast majority of people trained and knowledgeable about biology (in other words, the experts) believe that biological evolution is a reality.

​

Now, the "appeal to authority" or "argument from authority" part.

​

From Argument from authority - Wikipedia (find your own source if you don't like this one):

​

quote:

---

Argument from authority (argumentum ad auctoritatem), also authoritative argument, appeal to authority, and false authority, is an inductive reasoning argument that often takes the form of a statistical syllogism.[1] Although certain classes of argument from authority can constitute strong inductive arguments, the appeal to authority is often applied fallaciously.

​

Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:

​

- cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
- cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
- any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.

---

​

I'm not going to get into the deductive reasoning part, but for the first two, the fact that the vast majority of trained and knowledgeable believe that biological evolution is a reality is a legitimate argument from authority. They are experts (some more than others) in the subject and there is a consensus amongst those experts.

​

Per the "equivocation" charge. For the experts (most biologist), there is no difference between the processes of micro-evolutionary processes and macro-evolutionary processes. The equivocation is only in the creationist mind (and apparently also in this forums rules and moderator guidelines). All macro is is a lot of micro. And the expert consensus is that a lot of micro-evolution has indeed happened - Macro-evolution is a fact.

​

So, if you must, suspend me over my "equivocation".

​

quote:

---

'Evolution is a scientific fact more scientific than gravity'

​

This one is huge and i never really thought about it till a few weeks ago it is 100% ipse dixit bare assertion fallacy. Ie 'The moon is made of green cheese thats a scientific fact' is in the exact same category. Both are bare assertions expecting the listener to just take the speakers word for it (ipse dixit bare assertion fallacy). And of course wherever the 'e' word is used without the evolutionist defining it it is equivocation fallacy (i wont keep mentioning this one).

---

​

I've never heard that one. I think that the mainstream scientific belief (supported by evidence) is that the existence of both biological evolution and gravity is extremely strongly supported, and are thus designated as "facts". And I point out, per Stephan Jay Gould (Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money):

​

quote:

---

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

---

​

The item that I think that you were thinking of is something along the lines of "Scientific evolutionary theory is much more substantial than scientific gravity theory". In other words, there is a lot more scientific data about how evolution happens than there is about how gravity happens.

​

Moose

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

OK, you start out with one that is plain dumb.

​

What you have there are informal ways of saying "DNA evidence indicates/supports" and "Geologic evidence indicates/supports".
Setting aside what the precise percentage is, it is a fact that the vast majority of people trained and knowledgeable about biology (in other words, the experts) believe that biological evolution is a reality.

​

Now, the "appeal to authority" or "argument from authority" part.

​

From http://en.wikipedia...._from_authority (find your own source if you don't like this one):I'm not going to get into the deductive reasoning part, but for the first two, the fact that the vast majority of trained and knowledgeable believe that biological evolution is a reality is a legitimate argument from authority. They are experts (some more than others) in the subject and there is a consensus amongst those experts.

​

Per the "equivocation" charge. For the experts (most biologist), there is no difference between the processes of micro-evolutionary processes and macro-evolutionary processes. The equivocation is only in the creationist mind (and apparently also in this forums rules and moderator guidelines). All macro is is a lot of micro. And the expert consensus is that a lot of micro-evolution has indeed happened - Macro-evolution is a fact.

​

So, if you must, suspend me over my "equivocation".

---

​

It will be my pleasure. You are in blatant violation of the rules. You are not being banned for hypocritically calling Sammy dumb, given that you are being dumb on purpose (Romans 1) on multiple levels (being dumb doesn't get you banned, or else there would be a one-sided conversation on this forum). For example, the tired canard that "the vast majority" of "trained and knowledgeable" believe evolution. While there is a "majority" it is intellectually dishonest to claim it is both "vast" and qualified with "trained and knowledgeable" (translation: secular liberal scientists). See our radio show on this topic that dispels your myth: Page not found | KGOV.com.

​

Being dumb has never caused a banishment here, but being intellectually dishonest does, especially when it's against the forum's "prime directive" (see my article on this here).

​

Bye!

---