If evolution was really a scientific fact, why so much uncertainty about their certainty?
Fuzzy Words
We believe, we think
Given enough time, it will happen
Might work
Must have formed
“Those life forms must have evolved in the absence of oxygen,…”
Could possibly have been
My guess is
Seems like
Use of “fuzzy words” demonstrates that evolutionists do not have the evidence to support their claims. Yet, they will then turn around and contradict themselves by making bold statements such as - "evolution is a fact". "We have truck-loads of evidence for evolution". Or similar "GREAT" claims, as though if repeated enough, even in the light of their otherwise "fuzzy statements" and "uncertainties/contradictions", we might just be convinced, intimidated or at least confused.
The theory of gravity also uses some of your fuzzy words.
Check
here and
this place for some scientists ideas concerning gravity. Does this mean that gravity does not exist?
Half Truth
Half true and half false
Often more effective than the complete lie
Example: The Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to isolated systems, so it is not relevant to evolution, because the earth is an open system.
How is this a half truth? The earth receives energy from the sun so it is an open system.
BandwagonThe appeal to “everyone agrees”
Example: All scientists accept evolution
No real scientist accepts creation
To see a list of scientists that believe in a literal 6-day creation go to:
www.AnswersInGenesis.org Agreed that appeal to authority is an invalid argument in favor of evolution.
Glittering Generalities
A broad oversimplification of an explanation
Example: Scientists may disagree about the mechanism of evolution, but all agree that evolution is a fact.
It is simply the best idea we have for our origins (again, an idea, even if you think it best explains it (in your eyes), does not = fact).
So, when scientist disagree about the mechanism of a particular phenomenon, then that phenomenon does not exist? See my example of gravity above.
BTW: When do you plan on providing a hypothesis for our origin that fits the available data better than evolution? If you don't have one then the statement about evolution being the best hypothesis is true.
Loaded Words
Using emotionally-charged words to influence a reaction
Example: Creationism is a tactic by the “Christian right” to force their religious agenda on our children.
Example: Is it just me, or coincidentally are all creationists Christians?
The second example is incorrect it should read "fundamentalist Christians and Muslims".
Of course the creationists don't use any emotional rhetoric. They never mention racism, Hitler, Stalin, moral decline, abortion, or eugenics in reference to evolution. Or maybe they do....
abortionHitler and eugenicsmoral declineAssociation
Associating something you want to criticize with something people dislike
Example: Associating creation in the same sentence with astrology or known myths. Cloaked ridicule by deliberate silly association.
You mean you have more proof of 7-day creation than there is proof of the existence of Shiva or that astrology can predict your future proclivities?
See
racism Pot, Kettle, Black
Circumstantial Evidence
Assuming physical evidences are related
Example: We are here therefore we must have evolved (this is often the best evidence used to support evolution)
Example: Fossil horses arranged into an evolutionary sequence
And you have a reason for not putting these fossils in some sort of order based on physiological relatedness to each other and their location within the geological strata?
Either-Or Fallacy
Presenting only one possible solution when others are justified
Example: If we teach creation then we will have to teach every other creation myth
And your alternative to teaching creation accounts from all religions is...? Maybe we should just teach the ones that have a certain amount of evidence in their favor. Wait...they all have the same amount of evidence...they are a story in a religious text or narrative. Let's just teach the popular ones...sorry Wind Talker...your Navaho creation story just doesn't rate high enough to be taught to all our Christian children.
Analogy
Improperly drawing parallels while ignoring pertinent differences
Example: Evolution is a fact like digestion or gravity
I guess the other option is all those different kinds of animals and plants found in the fossil record lived on earth from the beginning in numbers high enough that they could maintain a population. Since none evolved into another kind then they either became extinct before Noah, Noah carried two of each of them on the ark, or Noah disobeyed God and didn't take some of them.
I wonder how many species of animals that would be? 500,000? A million? and thats just the large animals. You think the earth could support that many different species in the beginning?
Extrapolation
Assuming a trend beyond what the data permits
Example: Radioactive dating methods prove the earth is 4.6 billion years old
Example: Mutations are the mechanism for evolution
How is saying that mutations acted upon by natural selection are the mechanism for evolution considered taking a trend beyond what the data permits. What data are you talking about in this case?
Radioactive dating is based on the rate of radioactive decay. There is ZERO data showing that radioactive decay rates have changed in the past. If you don't trust radioactive decay then you better not use GPS since the time clock used is based on the decay of Cesium.
Best-in-Field Fallacy
An appeal to overlook discrepancies in a theory
Example: We don’t have all the answers, but evolution is the best model we have.
You have one that explains the evidence better? Please share. Nobel prize winners get head-of-the-line privileges. I'm surprised that Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Steve Austin are not applying.
Shifting the Burden of Proof
Forgetting that it is your responsibility to prove a claim, not your opponents to disprove it
Example: Claiming that creation has no proof and therefore should not be taught, when evolution has never been proven or is even capable of proof.
First of all, scientific theories are NEVER proven. They just have evidence in support...hypotheses have lots of evidence and theories have mountains of evidence. Additionally, theories remain theories as long as they are not disproved.
Second, no one says 7-day creationism has to be proved, just supply enough evidence to make it a theory and provide sensible rebuttals to the evidence against it (Stars that are more than 6000 light years away that can still be seen...for example).
Ad Hominem
Attacking the person instead of the argument
Example: Asserting that creationists are ultra-conservative, do not have real degrees, etc
Hovind's doctorate is from what accredited university? Ken Ham is a Doctor of ? Carl Baugh defended his PHD dissertation where?
Example: Accusing creationists of quoting out of context when they did not.
Example: Putting words in the mouth of the opponent, or making baseless, exaggerated accusations.
Ken Ham, Jonathan Safarti, and Kent Hovind are notorious for quoting out of context. That has been shown. I agree that just saying a quote is out of context is not a good tactic. Any accusation should be backed up with evidence. In the case of those 3, it has.
Exaggeration is a tactic that can be used if you are trying to show that a particular statement implies a ridiculous conclusion.
Example: Constant criticism about the critique of the debator's debating methods.
Like this entire thread?
Equivocation
Confusing the issue by using vague terms or changing the definitions of words
Example: Changing the definition of science to support only evolution
Example: Not clearly defining terms such as natural selection or macroevolution
Macroevolution is a creationist term. Evolutionists are not required to define it.
You will have to point out where natural selection is miss- or vaguely defined.
Please provide a definition of science from scientists or a science book and show how evolutionists define it differently.
Card Stacking
Listing all the points in your favor while ignoring the serious points against it
Example: Pouncing on one item by your opponent but ignoring the major points of his/her argument
Example: Trying to prove evolution using finch beaks or antibiotic resistant bacteria but ignoring all the problems
Pouncing on one item and ignoring the rest...talk to CTD about that one.
Again, changes within a species caused by outside influence (natural selection) is evidence for evolution, not proof. Thus far, no feasible mechanism has been identified that limits the amount of change that can occur (to my knowledge).
Bluffing
Appearing to know more than you do
Example: Making the claim that the fossil record is full of transitional fossils
You have something that indicates the whale line is not accurate?
Example: Dinosaurs evolved into birds
You have something that indicates the feathered dino's are fake or not transitionals?
Example: Taking refuge in complexity/intellectualism as a smoke-screen and means to either intimidate or confuse.
If you want a full explanation on how the scientists came to the conclusions that they did regarding evolution, then it will get complicated. I am not a biologist and have to read those research papers with a dictionary and biology textbook at the ready because I don't understand some of the things they reference. Those are the easy research papers.
If an evolutionist presents a simpler explanation of an aspect of evolution, then a creationist rightfully asks questions like "What about....", "How do you know...", the conversation is going to get more complicated. It has to in order to fully explore why certain conclusions were reached.
Science is complicated business because all the "easy" stuff was done in the 17 and 18 hundreds. Scientists don't just reach up their butts and try to pull out gold. They have to provide evidence and show how the evidence supports their conclusions better than it supports any other conclusion.
Complexity in the explanations is not a smoke screen, it is just the way science is.
Appeasement
The appeal that we're not really so different
Example: Most religions don’t have a problem with evolution
Example: I don't see why religion can't reconcile with evolution, the two can exist side by side.
Sounds like your religion can't reconcile with evolution. I'm ok with that, just don't force my grandchildren to learn your version of creation in their public school classroom until you have more evidence for it than "my holy book says so...".
Visualization
Using imagery to mislead or to substitute for evidence
Example: The evolutionary tree of life
Example: The geologic column
Example: Reconstruction of alleged “apemen”
Please show how each one of these examples is inaccurate with respect to the knowledge of organisms/geology that was available at the time. I realize that these visuals have changed with time as new information/evidence is uncovered. Did you expect them to remain the same? Science acknowledges when it is shown to be wrong and theories are changed or abandoned in the light of new evidence. Do you think this is an incorrect stance for scientists to take?
