The evolutionist, we have pointed out on other threads, builds his platform on a logical redundancy. When you ask him how such and such evolved, he will answer you with a description of its current utility, and suggest that those without such utility were culled by natural selection. As we have pointed out, his position is summed up by the parody "post hoc ergo propter hoc", which is to say "after the fact, therefore before the fact".
[Emphasis added]
24 comments
Drawing conclusions from existing evidence, which can include "current utility," is not necessarily an error. Often it is completely reasonable. Drawing unwarranted conclusions is an error, such as when Xians claim passages of the OT to be prophecies of the coming of Jesus.
Brilliant, if current utility were the only method. DNA, however, is more often used to plot evolutionary changes, and trace parent populations, and so on. Nice try, though.
I agree, a condescending little turd.
Uh oh, someone needs to go back to Latin class. (And Logic 101 as well).
Also, what's up with "the parody of" <latin phrase that Colossians doesn't understand>? That doesn't even make any sense in English.
Parody? Incidentally, a rough translation would be, "After this, therefore because of this." It means that a sequence does not necessarily involve causality. The rooster crowing does not cause the sun to rise. I suggest Colossians learn some Latin before he attempts to employ it. His translation makes no sense whatsoever, in any language.
It's amazing. I read through pages and pages of the thread, and you know what I discovered?
Colossian made an illogical, unsupportable claim, claiming it was a "debate"...and then everyone started trying to PROVE HIM WRONG. He didn't even have to offer up anything to support himself, he managed to get everyone all fired up on trying to do something impossible, all the while sitting back and not having to do what he SHOULD have had to do, which was support his own assertation. And everyone let him get away with twisting things so people were trying to disprove something he wasn't even trying to prove. I don't know which was more amusing, that he was able to get "evolutionists" to try and disprove his idea, or that they didn't notice he provided no support for his own statements and merely obfuscated things. :P
That entire thread is one long trainwreck. It's hard to say whether the OP is even serious or not, his arguments are so bad.
Personally, I'd be inclined to call him a troll if it weren't for his postcount.
Most of the CFers in the thread are pro-evolution people trying to wrap their heads around all that crazy, but even reading Colossus' posts is trying on my patience, so I doubt they'll get far with him.
To be fair, that's not "how" something evolved, that is "why" something evolved. The "how" starts with an accidental mistransmission of data, which may be bad (organism dies) or good (organism thrives). Natural selection just takes advantage of these mistakes.
That is not unlike what has happened to the Christian bible over the centuries, except the mistakes are not weeded out effectively so it is full of ridiculous tall tales...
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.