Replies

“Your long-winded comments all seem to boil down to:
‘You are not using terminology correctly. Therefore Evolution is solid science.’”

In other words, you will find fault with the comments regardless of their being short or long, right or wrong, so long as those comments disagree with your faith in your own argument. It is unfortunate for you and your argument that you willfully choose to make illogical and irrational comments. For example, your latest statement is yet another logical fallacy known as the unwarranted assumption fallacy. Wikipedia describes this logical fallacy as:

“Unwarranted assumption fallacy - The fallacy of unwarranted assumption is committed when the conclusion of an argument is based on a premise (implicit or explicit) that is false or unwarranted. An assumption is unwarranted when it is false - these premises are usually suppressed or vaguely written. An assumption is also unwarranted when it is true but does not apply in the given context.”

The false assumption in your statement is where you falsely assume using terminology correctly or incorrectly must determine whether or not “Evolution [meaning evolutionary theory] is solid science.”

First, evolutionary theory as it is known today must certainly remain partially incorrect and unproven like all true science. Only an omnipotent being could ever have the capacity to be 100 percent correct in any scientific theory. Your implied assumption evolutionary theory must be virtually 100 percent “proven” and unchanging in its conclusions (the Nirvana logical fallacy) is non-scientific, so it betrays your woeful ignorance of what constitutes science.

Second, any rational person knows the misuse of the scientific terminology by you or another person has no determinative power over whether or not “Evolution” [meaning evolutionary theory] is generally correct. In fact, if all of Humanity were to become extinct tomorrow, such evolutionary theory would be just as correct or incorrect as the day when there were no longer any humans around to use the terminology correctly or incorrectly.

Accordingly, your comment is rejected for being yet another rather extreme and laughably obvious logical fallacy.

“I ain’t buying anything you say.”

I did not ask or expect you to “buy anything” I say. If you choose to spout illogical and irrational comments and making accusations in Post 16 alleging insulting comments to the people who dispute your false statements and conclusions, don’t whine when they defend themselves against your false accusations. One of my good friends had the courtesy to vigorously debate evolutionary theory and its relationship to religion, and he subsequently was ordained as a minister while acknowledging the faults in his arguments without rancor and with humility. I do not see why honest and rational people cannot also do so with respect for each other and respect for the body of scientific evidence. I believe you could do so too, if you would have the courtesy to inform yourself and refrain from making statements which are such obviously outlandish logical fallacies.

“Just as I say that Global Warming and Evolution are very similar, I will also note that Evolutionists seems to engage in a great deal of semantic obfuscation — just like Marxists.”

There you go with the smear tactic. First, you falsely assume because you choose to indulge in false faith that “Global Warming and Evolution are very similar” in direct contradiction to the vast wealth of evidence showing the exact opposite. Furthermore, you disregard the obvious fact you are the person who is asserting your own personal faith is all the evidence you need as proof of your false proposition. This tactic of yours is a wealth of logical fallacies ranging from Wikipedia’s description of the “Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent” to the “Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.” Perhaps you should consider how your own behavior was described by your own earlier comment, “They are religious cults and they refuse to be disproven by any evidence.” Your own comment well describes yourself and your own behavior.

“People who REALLY have a handle on truth can express themselves simply and concisely.”

Yet you continue to fail in doing so quite spectacularly with an array of comments that are shown here to be false, irrational, and logical fallacies. As for the Truth, you your statement, “Humans did not descend or evolve from Apes,” falsely attempted to assume evolutionary theory claimed Humans descended from Apes, when in fact evolutionary theory does not make such a claim. On the contrary, evolutionary theory proposes that humans and Apes have a common ancestor that was certainly not an Ape. Yet here you are throwing around accusations of being a Marxist for having the temerity to note your false statements, false conclusions, attempts to defame persons who discuss evolution, or otherwise disagree with your personal faith in your own falsehoods. If you want to garner some respect for your beliefs, you might try apologizing for your false remarks about your false Apes remark and your false accusation of Marxism.

“Marxists cannot do this. They talk about politics and just use a hodge-podge of made-up vocabulary and sum it up by saying: ‘Scientific Socialism has once again been proved to be true.’”

What can I say but to note that is just that much more abusive commentary that serves as a better description of your own conduct than that of the people you choose to abuse. You were given an opportunity to have a rational discussion of the evidence, and your response was to make sarcastic remarks about being long-winded and continue on with abusively false accusations of associations with the Marxists. Missing from your comments is anything substantive from scientific observations to support your claims of faith.

“I see you doing exactly the same thing. You prove absolutely nothing, but you spend an inordinate amount of time critiquing the vocabulary used by others.”

On the contrary, I gave you the courtesy of pointing out where you have misused the terminology needed for you to understand the scientific principals under discussion. Rather than correct your mistakes and make yourself informed enough to communicate with each other rationally, you chose to be abusive and entirely uncooperative. No one can have a rational conversation with you so long as you willfully choose to misuse such basic facts of natural history as the huge differences between the Apes you commented about and the proposed evolutionary common ancestor of Apes and Humans. So far, it appears you have no idea what that difference is and are even less motivated to make yourself informed of that difference. How then are we supposed to have any further fruitful discussions further along when the role of biochemistry and genetics in evolutionary theory becomes the immediate topic of discussion?

“If we all just talked correctly, we would understand how solid the science of Evolution really is.”

More sarcasm from you absent any evidentiary substance.

“I think it’s a fraud.”

At this point why should anyone care what you think given the way in which you abusively assert falsehoods such as your comments about the Apes without any apologies for your all too obvious errors?