: English Logical fallacies by "Evolution Theory" blind believers



03-06-2018, 08:41 PM
Some common fallacious statements by Darwinists:


"Evolution theory is true because most scientists agree it's true"

The primary logical fallacy here is known as argumentum ad verencundiam (appeal to authority). This faulty line of reasoning suggests that a certain idea or proposition should be accepted because all the authorities accept it. And, while it is true that legitimate authorities can be trusted to supply real evidence, it is not true that a person should accept a conclusion solely because an authority says that such is the case, without that authority giving proper evidence for the conclusion.
Once in history, it was a "fact" that earth was flat, a logical fallacies known as Argumentum ad Populumappeal to the majority. The variation of this fallacy known as Bandwagon, is the idea in which someone attempts to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true. In other words, just because a lot of people believe in something (like neodarwinism), that does not make it trueand the number of people who believe in it should not be cited as evidence in support of the proposition.


"You're not a scientist; your opinions are not valid."
An ad hominem (Latin: "To the Man")
It is an argument which attacks people holding a contrary view, rather than attacking specific points regarding their view.

" Fossil sequences and genetic similarities to fall into the expected evolutionary patterns."
Affirming the consequent
If evolution is true then we expect fossil sequences and genetic similarities to fall into the expected evolutionary patterns.


"Because different forms of life are structured in similar ways, they are more likely to be related."
Non sequitur (Latin: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion where no connection exists between the two. The mere fact that things are similar does not require them to be related. God, the Creator may use similar chemical mechanisms to construct life, but that is not evidence that the forms of life are genetically related. The chemical similarity of all life is consistent with both creation and evolution and thus using it to defend common descent is a non sequitur.

Humans share a common ancestor with the apes.
Manufacturing facts from a theory
An undemonstrated, unobserved idea is stated as fact because it comports with a particular theory. It is only assumed to be true because it comports with the theory of common descent. But the theory of common descent can only derive from facts indicating that all life is related. Unobservable, untestable speculations cannot be stated as facts simply because they derive from the theory. They can only be stated as facts if they can be observed.

"Why do you hate science?"

Loaded question

A loaded question is a question that assumes facts not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts.

"Either you follow Islam or follow science."
Bifurcation
The fallacy of bifurcation is committed when two propositions are presented as if they were mutually exclusive and the only two possibilities, when in fact they are not.

"There can be no doubt that evolution is true, for everybody believes it today. "
Argument by General Consent.
This is the argument that something is true because "everybody believes it."

Nature has designed some amazing creatures.
Fallacy of reification :
Reification is attributing a concrete characteristic to something that is abstract. Nature does not have a mind and cannot literally design anything. By using the fallacy of reification, the evolutionist obscures the fact that the evolution worldview really cannot account for the design of living creatures.


Muslims say the world was created by God, but science says otherwise.
Fallacy of reification :
Here the person has attributed personal, concrete attributes to the concept of science. It's the scientists draw conclusions about the evidence and verbalize such conclusionsnot science. Science is a conceptual tool that says nothing. It does not take a position on issues.

Animals are well-suited to their environment because of natural selection,

Natural selection does not actually explain why we find organisms suited to their environment. It only explains why we do not find organisms that are unsuited to their environment (i.e., because they die).


It makes no sense to deny evolution; it is a well-established fact of nature.


This argument also begs the question since the truth status of microbe-to-man evolution is the very question at issue.


We know evolution must have happened, because we are here!

This argument begs the question, since the way we got here is the very point in question.