Here is how evolutionists lie

[StanJ]

https://youtu.be/5K-Q6mbEMYc

 

[River Jordan]

Actually I've graduated to recognizing that discussing anything with you is a waste of time

Except you've ignored critical posts from other people in this thread, strongly indicating that your issue isn't with me, but with people who criticize your posts.

The older I get the less willing I am to engage in fruitless discussions with people who are so inculcated they can't see the forest for the trees.

Pretty hypocritical coming from a person who only responds to "pats on the back" posts.

 

[River Jordan]

How convenient for science to be able to arbitrarily decide what is simply "unanswered"

What in th.........???????? :blink: First you claim that abiogenesis being an unanswered question is a problem for evolution, now you're saying that calling it unanswered is "arbitrary"?

When you make up your mind, let me know.

even when that unanswered question makes their entire position untenable.

Explain how.

Starting with the supposition that Darwinian theory is objective truth

Who did that, and where?

and labeling all dissent as crazy creationists

As I've shown, creationists make themselves out to be "crazy" ("dishonest" is a more accurate word IMO). I mean, you can't go around saying all the goofy stuff some creationists say (e.g., some of the things Stan linked to in the OP), and not expect people to respond "you're nuts".

while using a "Charles in Gaps" approach to abiogenesis just seems intellectually weak to me.

I'd bet that's because the real problem here is that you don't know the first thing about the actual science.

 

[StanJ]

What we have here is a common failure of evolutionists to understand common English vernacular.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

How many logical fallacies is one allowed in a single response?

I think River just went over the limit.

 

[River Jordan]

But you can't be bothered to name a single one.

What is it with you conservatives and this idea that you can just throw around whatever accusation you like and never feel a moral obligation to back any of them up?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Coming. The tease is always paid.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

How do evolutionists lie? That is the question.

If evolution as a paradigm is settled science, then there simply can't be an "unanswered" first cell.

You can't scream from the roof tops that "this is not a theory, this is fact" if you have no foundation.

That's what I mean by "can't account for."

You changed my conclusion to "unanswered question" and then proceeded to beat that straw man silly. Fallacy number 1.

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

Without life, Darwinism is untenable.

"The origin of species"

Really? With no foundation?

This is the logical fallacy of complete stupidity.

"You don't know the first thing about science."

Attack the man fallacy.

 

[River Jordan]

If evolution as a paradigm is settled science, then there simply can't be an "unanswered" first cell.

You can't scream from the roof tops that "this is not a theory, this is fact" if you have no foundation.

???????????? :wacko:

So your position is that scientists cannot say whether or not populations evolve, until they figure out how the first life forms on earth arose? Even though we see populations evolving all the time?

How in the world does that work? We go out in the field, study populations, document them evolving, but we can't say anything about it until we first figure out how the first life forms evolved? Er.....um..... :unsure:

You changed my conclusion to "unanswered question" and then proceeded to beat that straw man silly. Fallacy number 1.

You are actually disputing that the origin of the first life form is an unanswered question? Really? :blink:

Without life, Darwinism is untenable.

"The origin of species"

Really? With no foundation?

This is the logical fallacy of complete stupidity.

I certainly agree there's some stupidity going on here. I wonder if you hold all fields of science to this standard? Do you demand that oceanographers first explain the origin of the oceans before they can say for sure how currents and waves behave? Do you demand meteorologists explain the origin of the atmosphere before they can see for sure how clouds behave? Do you demand your doctor first explain the origin of the first life forms before he examine and diagnose you? :blink:

"You don't know the first thing about science."

Looks like I was spot on.

Attack the man fallacy.

You should probably learn the fallacies before citing them. It's only an ad hominem fallacy if someone attacks the person and ignores the argument. I've obviously addressed your arguments. Also, it's not really much of an "attack" if it's true, is it?

 

[ChristianJuggarnaut]

well we've reached the point where River pretends she doesn't know what subject we're on. That means it's time to check out.

I'll be back.

 

[River Jordan]

And when faced with questions.....CJ, like a good creationist.....ignores all of them and runs away.

I honestly don't know how you guys can do that so often, and never once have it occur to you that the reason you have to keep dodging questions and running away is because the position you're advocating is fundamentally wrong.

 

[StanJ]

Deflection and obfuscation are the tools of choice for many who claim to be Christian yet support evolution when it is anti-creation.

 

[Dcopymope]

Deflection and obfuscation are the tools of choice for many who claim to be Christian yet support evolution when it is anti-creation.

Which is why I don't understand why you continue wasting your time even having a discussion to them.