StanJ said:
What a bizarre website. First he argues not just against evolution, but against science as a whole. Apparently (according to the author), the scientific method just isn't all that useful. Funny seeing that on a website, which only exists because of the scientific method.
Then he repeats the creationist mantra that evolution = atheism, even though the vast majority of "evolutionists" are theists. Oh well....
Next, he goes into "Fallacies of Evolution". So let's take a look at 'em...
"
1 - Fallacy of Relevance. The argument from irrelevance occurs when the conclusion depends on evidence that does not apply to the same point."
For this, the author kind of rambles without really making a coherent point. He says something about organs and scientists not always knowing what some organs do, and therefore......I don't know what.
"2 - Begging the Question. This fallacy occurs when a person presents his own assurance that he is telling the truth as the reason why his statement is true."
For this, the author makes up imaginary quotes from scientists, and uses them to demonstrate his point. Hopefully I don't have to explain the ridiculousness of that approach.
"
3 - Misuse of Authority."
For this, he does the same as above.
"
4 - False Comparisons. When two items are wrongly compared in an argument, this fallacy occurs."
For this, he cites the famous peppered moth example and asserts "
Changes within species does not constitute evolution", which is completely wrong. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in populations over time.
"
5 - Argumentum ad Populum."
For this, he does the same thing as #'s 2&3 above (make up fake statements and attribute them to scientists).
"
6 - Fallacy of Dating. The argument from age (dating fallacy) occurs when something is declared to be so simply by giving it an old date!"
For this, he basically asserts that scientists are just making up old dates for things in order to prove evolution, and at one point he even says "
those fallacious dates provide us with no evidence of biological evolution." Honestly, that's such a stupid argument, anyone with any sense at all should be embarrassed to be associated with it.
At that point I stopped reading. All I can ask is....is this
really the sort of thing we want to associate with Christianity? If so, how can you be at all surprised when intelligent people who know even a little science figure if that's what Christianity is about, they want no part of it?