Replies

It would help if you understood a fallacy of the consequent. You might want to review. The basic premise is based on (if p then q) also written ( p -> q ).

My assertion is that if you teach kids they are animals, they will act like animals.

p - teach kids they are animals

q - kids act like animals

You can argue with my assertion if you wish (p -> q), but there is no logical fallacy involved in my argument.

Evolution teaches that humans are nothing more than evolved animals. We are teaching this to our kids. This is the p. Now by my assertion p -> q, since p is true it is logical for q to be true. So I stated q is true. Entirely logical given my assertion.

I didn't state that the current situation proved my assertion to be true. I started with the assumption that my assertion was true. I then added the sarcastic comment "Big surprise" because none of us should be surprised by p implies q.

Now the post hoc ergo propter hoc comment is an attack on my assertion. Arguable, but the motivation for my assertion was not coincidental correlation.

I started with the assumption that teaching kids something is in their nature will encourage characteristics of that nature.

As for unsubstantiated, you can review the arguement about the civilizing influence of religion.

My assertion is that if you teach kids they are animals, they will act like animals.

Which ultimately is meaningless, because you've not explained what it is to "act like animals".

Evolution teaches that humans are nothing more than evolved animals.

Some theists who accept evolution would beg to differ with that premise. But accepting it, so what?

This is the p. Now by my assertion p -> q, since p is true it is logical for q to be true. So I stated q is true. Entirely logical given my assertion.

Okay, so what is q? Explain exactly what "acting like animals" entails. Animals eat, sleep, breathe, excrete, reproduce and die. So do all humans. Is that a bad thing, or are you just making a meaningless point?

I didn't state that the current situation proved my assertion to be true. I started with the assumption that my assertion was true.

But you failed to explain the significance of your assertion. You also failed to explain what your argument is trying to prove. Are you saying that we shouldn't teach evolution because you don't like the implications, regardless of how valid it is as a science? Or are you just typing so that you can read your own words?

I then added the sarcastic comment "Big surprise" because none of us should be surprised by p implies q.

Except that p doesn't necessarily imply q. You've failed to demonstrate that children will not "act like animals" if they are not taught evolution. Of course, your "logic" might be easier to understand or dismiss if you'd even explain what you mean by "acting like animals".

Now the post hoc ergo propter hoc comment is an attack on my assertion. Arguable, but the motivation for my assertion was not coincidental correlation.

No, the post hoc ergo propter hoc was a valid demonstration that you failed to show a logical link between your alleged starting premise and the alleged consequences. There's also the fact that you didn't even explain what you meant by your consequences, but I let that slide.

I started with the assumption that teaching kids something is in their nature will encourage characteristics of that nature.

Characteristics that you failed to even explain. You just threw out "they'll act like animals" as if that meant something in itself. Animals do a lot of things, so what is it specifically that children do when they "act like animals", and how does this affect the validity of the theory of evolution?

As for unsubstantiated, you can review the arguement about the civilizing influence of religion.

We're not talking about religion here, we're talking about evolution. Or are you also trying to push the lie that all who accept evolution are atheists?