Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it. It is akin to saying the sun revolves around the earth.
25 comments
Hello, it's Sir Francis Dashwood, founder of the Hellfire Club! Shagged any good goats lately, Sir Francis?
Anyway, everybody knows life came from outer space. Said so on Star Trek.
Hey I like this game. I make a false, ignorant assertion about a group of people and then conclude a stupid fact.
Creationist make the claim that dinosaurs walked with man and are now encapsulated inside car engines. It's akin to say that cars can fly, if they want.
Bzzzt! I'm sorry, that's not the correct answer, but, thanks for playing our game. Here's your Rice-o-Roni. Now get out.
<<< Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption this planet is the starting point for all life >>>
Nope. In fact, many "evolutionists" (I hate that word, because it implies a sort of faith that isn't necessary for us) think there's a reasonable chance life developed on other planets elsewhere in the universe as well. If it could happen here, why not anywhere else? Surely in an infinite (or at least larger than the mind can easily comprehend) universe, there must be at least a few other planets with suitable conditions for life?
As a matter of fact, it was scientists (who are, overwhelmingly, supporters of evolution) who speculated on the possibility of life on Mars at some time in the distant past once we found water there.
<<< and is the encapsulated center of the universe unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it. >>>
Again, wrong. That is an almost uniquely creationist belief (hence why many scientists study the universe beyond our atmosphere, hence why we went to visit the Moon and sent probes to every planet in the solar system, etc.). In fact, where did the meteor most scientists believe to have wiped out the dinosaurs come from if not "beyond [the earth]"?
I'm not sure this guy could be further from right if he tried.
"Makes grammatical sense that someone who studies evolution related sciences would be an evolutionist."
No, because they have another name. People who, specifically, study evolution are evolutionary biologists. Do you call people who research gravity "gravitationists"?
As a member of the Association for the Humane Treatment of Straw Men, I must protest strongly against Sir Francis Dashwood's post and kindly ask him to use other, more humane fallacies. Mr. M. Behe frequently uses arguments from ignorance and arguments from buzzwords with his "irreducible complexity" argument, and Mr. K. Hovind makes up "facts" and claims they are real. Mr. Hovind also uses appeals to pride, by asking people "were your ancestors sludge?" With the vast number of humane logical fallacies, it is deplorable that you will attempt to advance creationism by mutilating helpless straw men.
If we let God, a entity whose existence will never be revealed due to it being a lie, into science, then we have to let every other fictional entity in there, too.
@AHTSM Member
Hovind also tells his crowds how smart they are and how stupid scientists are. He does it more than any other creationist I know although they all play that one a fair bit, Hams pretty close.
Hovind also spent about half an hour years ago doing a special show bitching about giving participation awards or awards to everyone on the team even if they lost. This was a Conservative pet peeve during the W Bush war years. Then he within minutes went into a defense of his FAKE PHd and how you didn't need to do years of study to be a scientist. Because you really need to teach kids you have to earn awards and respect except for science.
Then he went to jail because he really thought, with no reason to think so, that you don't have to pay taxes.
“Evolutionists make the fallacious assumption”
I don’t see where anyone makes that assumption, whether evolutionist or astrobiologists.
We’ve found layers of Earth where there was no life, an dthen there was simple life, and then more and more developed life, including spreading to the surface. It’s the most likely interpretation. Adding any sort of predecessor, without any evidence, would be a poor use of Occam’s Razor.
But, anyway, you have evidence that this is fallacious?
Or some argument to have evolutionists study the origins of life?
“this planet is the starting point for all life”
ALl llife we know about, anyway. It’d be different if we found a species of crab that breathed through it’s stomach and had vestigial lungs for breathing chlorine gas...
“and is the encapsulated center of the universe”
Also not part of evolution, but the physicists pretty much make it clear the universe doesn’t have a center in any meaningful way.
“unaffected by anything (or anyone) beyond it.”
That’s absolute bullshit. Some of the die-off theories DEPEND On a affect from beyond the Earth.
"It is akin to saying the sun revolves around the earth.”
Then you can show us how wrong the theory (that you horribly misattribute) is?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.