Darwin's Illegitimate Brainchild

[other one]

for a long time now, I have been told by  people who should know but want to keep their jobs that when something is donated to the Smithsonian that might shed a negative light on evolution, it simply disappears.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

Great point. We've had 150+ years to disprove his theory. Attacking the man is irrelevant and screams to any reasonable person of a lack of evidence contrary to his theory.

 

Actually, the Official Time of Death for darwinian evolution was 1972 with Punctuated Equilibrium......... = Ad Hoc Hypothesis

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience

Please falsify evolution via peer reviewed research and claim your Nobel. Otherwise, you are grasping at straws.

Peer Review.....................: http://creation.com/articles#journal_archive

Not interested in a Nobel, I already have my Prize..... and it had nothing to do with evolution.

Also, In your estimation or belief, HOW are we here?..... is it from: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD) ?

False dichotomy

 

No, that is not a false dichotomy. Either man has a Creator, or he doesn't.  Those are the only two options open to us.   Is man a cosmic accident as Evolutionists like Dr. Stephen Gould asserted, or is man's existence intentional and purposed?

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

 

 

Great point. We've had 150+ years to disprove his theory. Attacking the man is irrelevant and screams to any reasonable person of a lack of evidence contrary to his theory.

 

Actually, the Official Time of Death for darwinian evolution was 1972 with Punctuated Equilibrium......... = Ad Hoc Hypothesis

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience

Please falsify evolution via peer reviewed research and claim your Nobel. Otherwise, you are grasping at straws.

Peer Review.....................: http://creation.com/articles#journal_archive

Not interested in a Nobel, I already have my Prize..... and it had nothing to do with evolution.

Also, In your estimation or belief, HOW are we here?..... is it from: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD) ?

False dichotomy

 

 

A False Dichotomy/Dilemma/Black or White Fallacy is:  two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

 

So for your Assertion to be TRUE....You have to show that there are other choices besides:  Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD).

 

Good Luck

 

You offer a logical fallacy and expect me to explain it for you.  Study some more regarding evolution (as you erroneously call it "Random Chance") and then come back and tell me why it is the God of the bible and not some other creation myth.  Both of the options you offered have infinite possibilities, you only see the two you want to see.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great point. We've had 150+ years to disprove his theory. Attacking the man is irrelevant and screams to any reasonable person of a lack of evidence contrary to his theory.

 

Actually, the Official Time of Death for darwinian evolution was 1972 with Punctuated Equilibrium......... = Ad Hoc Hypothesis

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience

Please falsify evolution via peer reviewed research and claim your Nobel. Otherwise, you are grasping at straws.

Peer Review.....................: http://creation.com/articles#journal_archive

Not interested in a Nobel, I already have my Prize..... and it had nothing to do with evolution.

Also, In your estimation or belief, HOW are we here?..... is it from: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD) ?

False dichotomy

 

 

A False Dichotomy/Dilemma/Black or White Fallacy is:  two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

 

So for your Assertion to be TRUE....You have to show that there are other choices besides:  Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD).

 

Good Luck

 

You offer a logical fallacy and expect me to explain it for you.  Study some more regarding evolution (as you erroneously call it "Random Chance") and then come back and tell me why it is the God of the bible and not some other creation myth.  Both of the options you offered have infinite possibilities, you only see the two you want to see.

 

 

No, I think you're a bit confused.

 

"You offer a logical fallacy and expect me to explain it for you."

 

Why would I need you to explain it to me when I provided the definition with the Cited Source? 

 

You said it was a "Logical Fallacy".  Then I clearly demonstrated by CITED DEFINITION of the specific fallacy in question and tenets....that in fact, it was not.  Hence; your charge of False Dichotomy (Logical Fallacy).... is well, false.  It went from Baseless Assertion to a Falsehood.

 

 

"come back and tell me why it is the God of the bible and not some other creation myth."

 

First you have to understand the Falsehood (SEE: above) you proffered; then, I will be more than happy to tell you.  Or wing on over to "why this is important" Thread Message #56 for a detailed rationale.

[jerryR34]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Great point. We've had 150+ years to disprove his theory. Attacking the man is irrelevant and screams to any reasonable person of a lack of evidence contrary to his theory.

 

Actually, the Official Time of Death for darwinian evolution was 1972 with Punctuated Equilibrium......... = Ad Hoc Hypothesis

Ad Hoc Hypothesis or "after-the-fact" Hypothesis: is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified. They are characteristic of PSEUDO-scientific objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis

PSEUDO-science: is an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions.

http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/pseudoscience

Please falsify evolution via peer reviewed research and claim your Nobel. Otherwise, you are grasping at straws.

Peer Review.....................: http://creation.com/articles#journal_archive

Not interested in a Nobel, I already have my Prize..... and it had nothing to do with evolution.

Also, In your estimation or belief, HOW are we here?..... is it from: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD) ?

False dichotomy

 

 

A False Dichotomy/Dilemma/Black or White Fallacy is:  two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

 

So for your Assertion to be TRUE....You have to show that there are other choices besides:  Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD).

 

Good Luck

 

You offer a logical fallacy and expect me to explain it for you.  Study some more regarding evolution (as you erroneously call it "Random Chance") and then come back and tell me why it is the God of the bible and not some other creation myth.  Both of the options you offered have infinite possibilities, you only see the two you want to see.

 

 

No, I think you're a bit confused.

 

"You offer a logical fallacy and expect me to explain it for you."

 

Why would I need you to explain it to me when I provided the definition with the Cited Source? 

 

You said it was a "Logical Fallacy".  Then I clearly demonstrated by CITED DEFINITION of the specific fallacy in question and tenets....that in fact, it was not.  Hence; your charge of False Dichotomy (Logical Fallacy).... is well, false.  It went from Baseless Assertion to a Falsehood.

 

 

"come back and tell me why it is the God of the bible and not some other creation myth."

 

First you have to understand the Falsehood (SEE: above) you proffered; then, I will be more than happy to tell you.  Or wing on over to "why this is important" Thread Message #56 for a detailed rationale.

 

you offered two choices when there are multiple choices - even multiple choices within the options you presented.  Please ask your question with all available options.  Thanks.

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

You offer a logical fallacy and expect me to explain it for you.  Study some more regarding evolution (as you erroneously call it "Random Chance") and then come back and tell me why it is the God of the bible and not some other creation myth.  Both of the options you offered have infinite possibilities, you only see the two you want to see.

 

 

No, I think you're a bit confused.

 

"You offer a logical fallacy and expect me to explain it for you."

 

Why would I need you to explain it to me when I provided the definition with the Cited Source? 

 

You said it was a "Logical Fallacy".  Then I clearly demonstrated by CITED DEFINITION of the specific fallacy in question and tenets....that in fact, it was not.  Hence; your charge of False Dichotomy (Logical Fallacy).... is well, false.  It went from Baseless Assertion to a Falsehood.

 

 

"come back and tell me why it is the God of the bible and not some other creation myth."

 

First you have to understand the Falsehood (SEE: above) you proffered; then, I will be more than happy to tell you.  Or wing on over to "why this is important" Thread Message #56 for a detailed rationale.

 

you offered two choices when there are multiple choices - even multiple choices within the options you presented.  Please ask your question with all available options.  Thanks.

 

 

 

There are only 2 Choices: Random Chance ("Nature") or Intelligent Design (GOD)

 

"even multiple choices within the options you presented."

 

"WITHIN" being the "KEY" Word in your statement.  That means sub-categories UNDER:  Random Chance ("Nature") or Intelligent Design (GOD).

 

See: No Logical Fallacy.

 

So go ahead and list your SUB-category Choices.... AND YOUR PERSONAL CHOICE , then we'll scrutinize and eval each systematically for efficacy and merit.

 

 

ps. There are no actual SUB-Categories under "Nature" it's just "Random Chance" when you get right down to it.