expos4ever
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2008
- 10,730
- 5,794
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I know this seems like spiking the football, but consider this litany of illegitimate arguments from those who oppose evolution that we have seen in this thread:
- the demand that evolution be proven, but when this is clearly not a reasonable request relative to a scientific theory.
- the old "its just a theory" line that is based on hoping readers do not understand the specialized meaning of the word "theory" when used in reference to science
- repeated refusals to actually engage arguments presented in a post
- the easily refuted "evolution is refuted by thermodynamics" argument.
- the also easily refuted misrepresentation that evolution is all about "luck" (natural selection - a non-random process is conveniently ignored)
- the profoundly misleading use of the word "error" to describe mutations. In one sense, one could call such mutations "errors" but the intent of using this word is clear: to confuse the reader with the seemingly nonsensical notion that evolution says "errors produce evolutionary progress". Yes, that does seem wrong, but only because the creationist is cynically using artfully chosen language to deceive. More neutral, fair characterizations, would be "alterations" or "modifications" or "acts of copying that produce a different result than is normally produced".
- the demand that evolution be proven, but when this is clearly not a reasonable request relative to a scientific theory.
- the old "its just a theory" line that is based on hoping readers do not understand the specialized meaning of the word "theory" when used in reference to science
- repeated refusals to actually engage arguments presented in a post
- the easily refuted "evolution is refuted by thermodynamics" argument.
- the also easily refuted misrepresentation that evolution is all about "luck" (natural selection - a non-random process is conveniently ignored)
- the profoundly misleading use of the word "error" to describe mutations. In one sense, one could call such mutations "errors" but the intent of using this word is clear: to confuse the reader with the seemingly nonsensical notion that evolution says "errors produce evolutionary progress". Yes, that does seem wrong, but only because the creationist is cynically using artfully chosen language to deceive. More neutral, fair characterizations, would be "alterations" or "modifications" or "acts of copying that produce a different result than is normally produced".
Upvote
0