Why do people deny evolution?

@Briancrc,

Quote:

I think your English is pretty good;

Thank you very much, considering it is a very remote language for me, and people here have stated otherwise.

Quote:

It's your humor that sucks

Yes, in your eyes. Howver a lot of people here bag to differ with you on this one,

But I do understand considering you are a religious evolutionist and hence, the target of my humor.

I get that, it's ok.

0 Replies

@Briancrc,

Quote:

Interesting view you have regarding the effects of religion. If only we had a process to objectively study natural phenomena, make a record of our observations, develop theories based on the evidence, and openly debate those theories with peers who have expertise in a respective field.

Yeah, that is the myth. 'science' was invented when religions were loosing their control. It is really a disguised manipulaion tool, it is madness like a religion is,

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Are you as illogical in your native language as you are in English?

well, well, well, again an ah! not surprising is it?
Now, you have to tell me where I am illogical.

It is possible I am but this one is, again, way too vague

So enlighten me, and tell me were the illogical is.

Can you do that?

0 Replies

@evobulgarevo,

Quote:

"it's pretty much been solidified by hundreds of years of scientific research and evidence"

This sounds tremendously one sided. Just because an idea is propagated as the popular choice in the mainstream distribution channels of a society, it doesn't mean that it is accurate.

Eloquently put!

Quote:

Personally, I believe in evolution. But then again, what type of evolution are we talking about? The type of evolution that Charles Darwin talked about? If we're talking about the Darwin concept of evolution, then I'll go right ahead and say that I'm no longer a supporter of that view.

Exactly my pointt, 'they' switch from definition to definition, depending on what part of the nonsense is attacked.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Its obvious that the relativity between the sun earth moon and planits had most input in the design of life on earth if the moon was not the same relative size as the sun from an earth perspective for example we would either not exist as humans at all or be of a different relative design.

1 Reply

@martinies,

Relativity is nonlocality with stuff in it doing stuff and creating different stuff.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

You didn't address my argument. You ignored how my calling you that is not an ad hominem since I don't say that is why you are wrong.

Your insistence on not discussing your errors and instead claiming I am using ad hominems would be a better example of an ad hominem argument than anything I have done. You are arguing that I have no argument because I called you a name. You are ignoring the arguments I have made for instance when I pointed out you misrepresented the definition of evolution you were given. That would be an example of you using the straw man fallacy.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You didn't address my argument. You ignored how my calling you that is not an ad hominem since I don't say that is why you are wrong.

Your insistence on not discussing your errors and instead claiming I am using ad hominems would be a better example of an ad hominem argument than anything I have done. You are arguing that I have no argument because I called you a name. You are ignoring the arguments I have made for instance when I pointed out you misrepresented the definition of evolution you were given. That would be an example of you using the straw man fallacy.

Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

Just again one long ad hominem.

and of course no evidence

and ah well for your information, again, yawwwn, I have written that the 'evidence' is only 'evidence' if you already believe the bull **** theory.
It is just a projecting of once imagination upon these things, hence no proof at all.

btw
Do you stalk everyone who disagrees with your nonsense?

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Do you always avoid any discussion of the fallacies in your arguments?

http://able2know.org/topic/229102-382#post-6066627

In your post you claimed it was vague when it talked about the various types of plants and animals and didn't include all plants and animals which you tried to make an argument by ignoring the use of the definitive article in the definition. Since you made the claim, I am asking you which plant or animal is not one of the various types of plants or animals. You can't seem to defend your statement. You run away from defending your statement. That makes you a disingenuous a-hole. You refuse to defend your arguments.

You asked repeatedly for a definition. When you were given one you changed it to argue against it. That is a straw man fallacy on your part. You can address that issue or you can continue to be the disingenuous a-hole that makes false statements and then runs away from them.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

btw
Do you stalk everyone who disagrees with your nonsense?

It's funny how you think someone that disagrees with you and points out your errors is stalking you. Accusing me of stalking you for disagreeing with you would be an ad hominem. It clearly fits the definition.
http://www.skepdic.com/adhominem.html

You will note that I called into question your statement about types of animals and plants. You reply that I am using ad hominems while stalking you. It is your refusal to address the issue of your straw man that makes you a disingenuous a-hole. Disingenuous because you used the straw man fallacy among other deceptions. A-hole because you don't answer the questions about your false claims but instead name call and change the subject.

1 Reply

@parados,

again, only one big ad hominem with a lot of false conclusions and accusations.

It al looks very insane what you are trying to do.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Since you are accusing me of using an ad hominem perhaps you could explain why it is an ad hominem. I have explained why it isn't one. Using your definition, with a link to it, explain why my post meets that definition. I doubt you will do so. In fact I predict you won't do so but will simply continue to accuse me of using ad homs without ever explaining why it is as ad hominem.

1 Reply

@parados,

again an ad hominem

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn, i even stop reading your shite!

2 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Which iss of ourse n ad hominem. We have etablishedf tast ZYOU are n egrgious usge of them yourslf, quahog, so STFU.. in fact the first post of yours I can remember reading was one of your "eolutionists are stupid" ones, which coninced me right there that the poster was a loon and I've seen nothing to make me change my mind. And we're still waiting for your atttmpt reute the 30+ evidnces of cro evolution we've presented you with. our slipshod scrèed againsyt Haeckel doesn't count even as one because you got youtr fscts wrong and he dint even figure in the proofs anyway. STILL waiing.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

Which iss of ourse n ad hominem. We have etablishedf tast ZYOU are n egrgious usge of them yourslf, quahog, so STFU.. in fact the first post of yours I can remember reading was one of your "eolutionists are stupid" ones, which coninced me right there that the poster was a loon and I've seen nothing to make me change my mind. And we're still waiting for your atttmpt reute the 30+ evidnces of cro evolution we've presented you with. our slipshod scrèed againsyt Haeckel doesn't count even as one because you got youtr fscts wrong and he dint even figure in the proofs anyway. STILL waiing

You really don't read my postings now do you?

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

So rather than providing a working definition of ad hominem and an explanation of why my post is an ad hominem you simple post an ipse dixit followed by an ad hominem.

Let me explain this to you, Q. I provided a link to a definition of ad hominem and explained why my argument wasn't an ad hominem. You didn't explain why it was an ad hominem. That means you didn't address the core of the argument making any statement about me personally that can be deemed derogatory to be an ad hominem under the definition of ad hominem. I called you a name after addressing your argumnent which would make my statement not an ad hominem since I addressed the core of the argument.

You stated "again an ad hominem" but post no explanation why which makes your statement an ipse dixit. You expect us to believe it is true simply because you say it is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit

You then said I post shite, which does meet the definition of an ad hominem since you didn't explain why my post was an ad hominem but only directed an attack at me personally by claiming I post shite.

Quote:

ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

In your short post with 2 sentences you manage to commit 2 logical fallacies. Not a very good track record for someone that claims to know more than the majority of scientists.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

So rather than providing a working definition of ad hominem and an explanation of why my post is an ad hominem you simple post an ipse dixit followed by an ad hominem.

Let me explain this to you, Q. I provided a link to a definition of ad hominem and explained why my argument wasn't an ad hominem. You didn't explain why it was an ad hominem. That means you didn't address the core of the argument making any statement about me personally that can be deemed derogatory to be an ad hominem under the definition of ad hominem. I called you a name after addressing your argumnent which would make my statement not an ad hominem since I addressed the core of the argument.

You stated "again an ad hominem" but post no explanation why which makes your statement an ipse dixit. You expect us to believe it is true simply because you say it is true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipse_dixit

You then said I post shite, which does meet the definition of an ad hominem since you didn't explain why my post was an ad hominem but only directed an attack at me personally by claiming I post shite.

Quote:
ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

In your short post with 2 sentences you manage to commit 2 logical fallacies. Not a very good track record for someone that claims to know more than the majority of scientists.

yaawennnn

again, ad hominems and shite!

what else is new?

Yawnnn

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Another shining example of you being unable to provide any support for your statement. Keep it up. You are making a rather good case for your being a disingenuous a-hole since you never address any issues.

To recap.
You have claimed all evidence of evolution presented here is false but never presented any support for that claim.
You demanded a definition of evolution and then misrepresented that definition in order to argue against it.
You have claimed I am posting ad hominems but have provided nothing to show how my posts are ad hominems. I have laid out a case why my statements are not ad hominems and you have provided no rebuttal.

There seems to a pattern emerging with you Q. You make claims and then never provide support for your claims. That leads to the conclusion that you are disingenuous in that you ask for evidence from everyone else but never provide any in support of your own statements. Your repeated prevarication leads me to think you are an a-hole.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Another shining example of you being unable to provide any support for your statement. Keep it up. You are making a rather good case for your being a disingenuous a-hole since you never address any issues.

To recap.
You have claimed all evidence of evolution presented here is false but never presented any support for that claim.
You demanded a definition of evolution and then misrepresented that definition in order to argue against it.
You have claimed I am posting ad hominems but have provided nothing to show how my posts are ad hominems. I have laid out a case why my statements are not ad hominems and you have provided no rebuttal.

There seems to a pattern emerging with you Q. You make claims and then never provide support for your claims. That leads to the conclusion that you are disingenuous in that you ask for evidence from everyone else but never provide any in support of your own statements. Your repeated prevarication leads me to think you are an a-hole.

bla bla bla ad hominem bla bla bla

what a joke this one is!

1 Reply

another ad hominem from you, quahog.

0 Replies

Why do people deny evolution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know