Hone your logic skills here

Natural_SciGuy
Natural_SciGuy's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Hone your logic skills here

The examples of common logical fallacies given at the following site just knock my socks off - But this is what you'll face if you butt heads with a creationist.

Good to be aware of how one's counterparts think.

http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy

It might be good to practice refuting some of these.
 
Or learn how to avoid mistakes when presenting your evidence for evolution.

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Many everyday

Quote:

Many everyday evolutionists, including those without advanced degrees in science, have been known to layer fallacy upon fallacy to support their claims.

If you don't get how retarded that sentence is, then you are too far gone to be saved.

 

Quote:

What they are taught is a great number of facts about evolution, and in order to pass their exams, they must be able to repeat all the facts about evolution they have been taught. They need not think critically. They need not evaluate analytically. They need only repeat what they have been told. What critical thinking does occur (in their dissertation research, for instance) is always done within the materialistic and evolutionistic paradigm. They may think critically, but not too critically. And when they graduate and face creationists on the field of philosophy of science, they are steeped in the ideas of evolution, convinced it is the truth and science, and become infuriated by creationists who have not earned a PhD who somehow feel entitled to question their dogmas.

Jesus, save me.

Please find better sources. For the love of God, find sources that aren't filled with lies. I thought of just posting a picture of a man with his pants on fire, but I'm going to take the mature route and try to be reasonable about this. If I can't make it through the introductory part of a webpage because there are too many lies, then you have found a bad source.

Do you believe the things that are quoted above? Are you just trolling us by tricking us into clicking on links that take us to pages that are lie filled peices of shit? What is going on here?

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It's funny, I was just

It's funny, I was just reading an opinion article about the Darwin movie that came out recently. One of the common mistakes is calling evolution "Survival of the fittest". I saw this fallacious cliche in this movie review.

Evolution is nothing more than managing ANY WAY YOU CAN, even if by mere luck, getting to the point of replication.

I often use this analogy to explain why "Survival of the fittest" is false:

Say you have a 140lb guy walking down the street and a 250lb guy pulls a knife on the smaller guy and demand's his wallet, the 140lb guy pulls out a gun and shoots the 250lb guy. IT IS THE ABILITY TO ADAPT, and part of that adaptation is luck and opportunity. The smaller guy still has to be lucky enough to spot the opportunity to pull his gun out before he gets stabbed. The bigger guy can still stab him before he gets shot. So it is not either or. It is merely getting to the point of passing on one's genes.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Natural_SciGuy
Natural_SciGuy's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Whoa there Jormungander!

Oh my - I should have made my initial post more clear.

I don't buy a WORD of what was written on that site.  I simply find it fascinating to see how theists can represent "logical arguments" against evolution.  My apologies if I presented the link in a contrary manner.

I find it all quite laughable - Especially the circular logic section.  I hold no theistic views - I merely find this comprehensive list of creationist logic to be a decent exercise in "honing the B.S. detector" if you get my drift.  It's great to have all of the worst arguments from ones opposition listed on one page.

 

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Lots of strawmen....

Lots of strawmen....

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
That page is a giant strawman

 

What's the implication of biology students not taking logic and philosophy classes? They're all irrational now?

Christians must be thankful for the gifts of logic and philosophy. They're not dishing much up in reality.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Natural_SciGuy wrote:I don't

Natural_SciGuy wrote:

I don't buy a WORD of what was written on that site.  I simply find it fascinating to see how theists can represent "logical arguments" against evolution.  My apologies if I presented the link in a contrary manner.

Ah, I see now. My bad.

 

There are some great quotes on that site.

"The earth cannot be merely six thousand years old (or ten thousand), because we have found life-forms that carbon-14 dating shows to be forty thousand years old."

"While some creationists refer to themselves as "scientific creationists" or "creation scientists", very little of creationism is actually scientific - and that is either falsified, poorly evidenced or in agreement with mainstream science."

"Creationism can't be right -- the fossil record shows that fossils were laid down over millions of years."

Even when creations put words in our mouths, it is still true. Their caricatures of how scientists think is better than actual creationist thinking.

 

I even found this on their website:

They are so close to getting why they are wrong. Yet, they are so very far.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Is "evolutionistic" even a

Is "evolutionistic" even a word in the English language?


Natural_SciGuy
Natural_SciGuy's picture
Posts: 22
Joined: 2010-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Ahahaha.  The flowchart is

Ahahaha.  The flowchart is still cracking me up.

I'm glad this is finding it's way to people who truly appreciate it's nuances. 

This one made me chuckle:

 

E: Creationism is not scientific because it is not falsifiable.

Common descent is also unfalsifiable. It cannot be proven wrong, because we cannot directly observe the ancient past. Is it also then unscientific?

I love this one.  Common descent is absolutely falsifiable.  The issue is that it isn't logical to attempt to directly disprove common ancestry - One would need to prove the absence of a common ancestor... Like proving the absence of light in a dark room.  So we only have indirect means to do so.  Find human remains in Precambrian strata and BINGO - Indirect refutation of common descent! 

 

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.
-- Richard Dawkins