Chromosome challenge from Creationuts

I have yet to hear an explaination of 'the Chromosome Challenge' from Einstuck. All he has engaged in is an unsupported accusation of 'CONSPIRACY!' and 'BIAS!', where he accuses scientists of being typically deceitful and biased. His argument amounts to 'OF COURSE these evolutionists are going to skew the evidence to support evolution. It's so obvious, the burden of proof doesn't rest with me to support my assertion of bias, it rests with the skeptics!'

This amounts to nothing more than a 'Poisoning the Well' logic fallacy, via a Circumstantial Ad Hominem attack.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

Einstuck has engaged in a classic example of 'Poisoning the Well' via the use of a Circumstantial Ad Hominem.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

As my sources explain, when an opponent 'poisons the well', the argument is no longer about the topic at hand, but about the credibility of the arguer, which is an irrelevancy. A Circumstantial argumentum ad hominem aims to discredit the argument by attacking the arguer themselves. This personal attack often includes the claim that the opponent has a 'personal interest' in the matter that they are discussing (aka. they are biased), hence their arguments cannot be trusted.

Quite simply, this is logically fallicious. Merely because the Catholic Church has a history of concealing child abuse, does not invalidate their moral arguments regarding the ethical bankruptcy of the Nazi regime.

Merely because a Republican supports privitization does not automatically invalidate his arguments in favour of privitization.

Einstuck has consistently failed to attack the argument that the genetical observations presented in this thread are a powerful indicator of common descent.
He has also failed to provide a valid alternative explaination as to why we observe such genetical similiarities which strongly indicate common descent.

Instead, he has ATTACKED THE ARGUERS THEMSELVES, which is nothing more than a 'poisoning the well' fallacy (a pre-emptive circumstantial ad hominem attack). This would equivalent to be attempting to debunk a Creationist argument by touting that obviously their statements are false, 'because they are Creationists, and hence they will obviously be biased in favour of Creationism due to their religious beliefs'.

In fact, Einstuck's line of Circumstantial Ad Hominem can be used against ANY opponent. "Of course he interprets that evidence according to *insert subject*, because he is an avid supporter of *insert subject*, and would be heartbroken if his views of *insert subject* were debunked.

Everyone is biased to someone degree, however, this gives no indication on whether their ARGUMENTS contain bias.

Quite simply, Einstuck himself admitted that "(He is) not challenging the data, just exaggerated claims as to its significance."

Hence, Einstuck needs to stop engaging in argumentum ad hominem, and give a robust explaination as to why the fusion of 2 chimp chromosomes into a single human chromosome is not excellent evidence of common descent. He needs to explain why the argument pushing common descent as a valid explaination for the genetic data is flawed, NOT why the argumenters themselves flawed.

Arguments about 'bias' being common amongst scientists is not only a red herring, it is a poisoning the well fallacy. An argument stands or falls on its own merits , not on the credentials and 'biases' of the one pushing the argument.

I will ignore any further attempts by Einstuck to engage in 'poisoning the well' fallacies, and will only address his rebuttals to the ACTUAL CHALLENGE. Any attempt at shifting the burden of proof regarding the honesty of scientists will be ignored, because not only is 'shifting the burden of proof' a logic fallacy, the honesty of scientists is irrelevant when it comes to the challenge at hand.

I'm sick of being led on a wild goose chase. Are there any Creationists here who are willing to address the challenge itself, instead of engaging in logic fallacies galore?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

*yawn*
When you're done, perhaps we can continue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I take it that is an admission of defeat of your corrupt ideas and your poor debating skills. Have the good grace to acknowledge it formally, rather than in that trite, childish manner you are affecting.
Sorry. It's not an affectation? You are trite and childish. I apologise for misinterpreting you, then.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Who can stay mad at you, Ophelia?

 

My wife.

Interesting technique you are trying there Einstuck. Other posters, with less experience, may wish to observe it.
1. Denigrate your opponent in an apparently gentle way: change their name in a lighthearted manner; address them as you would a child, or pet.
2. This is designed to cast the opponent in a trivial light.
3. Indicate an indifference to the opponents arguments, because they lack substance.
Quite clever, since some readers will assume 'where there is smoke there is fire'.

It is one of the few techniques available to the individual whose arguments have been systematically demolished.

Anyway Einstuck, why would you even become mad at me? You should be mad at yourself for having deluded yourself. You are the victim here. It is not pleasant watching such self harm.

 

As Jesus said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician."

Why should I blame the victim of a delusion? And why should you?

by your own testimony I shouldn't be mad at myself. I should be mad at you.
You have utterly failed to cure me of my delusions, because you must either be completely derelict in your duty, or else incompetent to save me.

But since I am deluded, I haven't really fully grasped this, and so I can't stay mad at you. I know that someday you'll look back in horror and regret at having been so flippant and irresponsible, as you ponder the subsequent career of the young terrorist and greatest mass murderer in the history of the 21st century, and know that you could possibly have dissuaded me, a frustrated housepainter.

 

Fine. You've convinced me. I'll buy one of your watercolours.

I see you are still avoiding the argument, or any admission that you have lost it.

 

Conversational Terrorism

Any of that looking familiar?

As far as the OP goes, I think you'll find the few aruments against biological science that you do encounter from the creationists rather lacking.

A majority of Americans believe in a god, although the flavors vary. Many of those people sense that their god and science are at odds, and faced with the requirement to choose between them, science is far easier to discard than faith. As Robert Bolt said, "Belief isn't merely an idea the mind possesses, but rather it's an idea that possesses the mind". For most people, discarding their belief is about as voluntary as changing their sexual orientation. Discarding science is a snap - most of them don't really know what it is anyway.

 

But some of us do. With Hiroshima as an eternal example,
it seems pretty clear that we cannot trust scientists to do the right thing with technology.

The right thing during and after the 2nd World War would have been for all the scientists to form an international conspiracy and prevent atomic weapons from ever being made, keeping the true science and technology far away from military and political strategists. But they were a bunch of immoral idiots.

Ophiolite: Please have a look at this lovely watercolor over here.
I don't think there is any real disagreement between us.
You can see that my skills as an artist are unfairly ignored.

 

Hiroshima was the product of human military men, human politicians, human technicians, and human scientists. Science itself had bugger all to do with it. Science is neutral. It is a descriptive system.
How many IDists and Christians, then and now, applauded the destruction of the evil Japanese Empire? Rhetorical question. Don't attemp an answer.

That is the dumbest thing you've said so far, which is quite an achievement, given your record.

 

And that's not easy, given the relationship between chimps and humans in this thread.
Be careful not to depress the market value of my paintings however.

uh huh ha ha ha haaa! aw haw haw haa haaaa.
uh hu hu hu ha ha haa haa haa haa.
Aaaah haaa haa aaah,... oh my stomach's hurtin'..ih hi hi he he he ha ha haw haw.

oh ho ho ho haw haw haa haaa haaa haha haaa haw haw.

oh tears choking up my eyes.. ha ha ha hhha haa ha ha heh he heee.

omigod aah haa ha haa ha haa.

cough.

out of breath...aching side...must breathe...

coca cola coming out my nostrils...ohhhh

 

this is not a condemnation of man, it's a condemnation of god, for god made man, and showed man by example, how easy it is to kill.

how so, you drive a car, dont you you watch tv, use a telephone, and right now your using something that these untrustworthy scientist made,
better go back to scratching letters on stone with a rock, or better still conversation only, "nil by computer".

it was president truman 1945/53, who married the two science and military, oppenheimer and other scientist, tried to have it stopped on moral grounds.

 

Einstuck if you are unable to understand that science is neutral then it is evident that you have no meaningful understanding of science.
Science is an objective, neutral methodology for gaining an understanding of the world. You claim to have read Khun: you do not appear to have understood him.
You also fail to be able to discern the difference between science, which is always neutral and objective, and scientists who, on occasion, display all too human failings.
I was going to place you on ignore, but it occurs to me that your lightweight responses to my posts are a clear admission on your part that you are defeated. Please lie down and die gracefully.

 

Okay you win.

Science is neutral.

Scientists are ethically superior to other professions.

The Wealthy Elite Ruling Class abandoned the false doctrine of 'overpopulation' long ago, or at least right after making peace with Stalin.

And 25 million dying Blacks are a lucky accident that can be ignored.
But if Africa is empty next time we pop by, we can just help ourselves to those diamonds.

 

I see that Einstuck is still engaging in the fallacy of 'Poisoning the Well', and introducing irrelevancies into the discussion. When he's done, I think that he might be able to finally begin addressing the actual evidence, and the obvious conclusion that we make, of the Chromosome Challenge. He has failed to do so till date, and I wait with bated breathe for him to do so.

Meanwhile, is there anyone here that is actually interested in addressing the 'Chromosome Challenge'? I have yet to see any-one mount a valid argument against the evidence, or the obvious conclusion, that I have presented on this thread. Merely petty attempts at 'poisoning the well', by accusing scientists and myself of 'bias' and 'corruption'. Because we all know that if someone discredits the argumenter, then their arguments fall by default... right? All that stuff about an argument falling or standing on its own merits is just an urban myth! (note: I'm being sarcastic).

As I suspected, this damning evidence for common descent is Creationist Kryptonite. Creationists can't even attack the evidence, or the obvious conclusion, directly. Instead, they stoop to Poisoning the Well with ad hominems, and defaming scientists. Attack the people who disagree with you as being 'biased' and 'corrupt'. Don't attack their arguments, because that would be too hard, and too honest!

 

"nhuhh...starting to black out....Lois! quick, pass my lead-lined underpants!...hu -rry.."

 

Dumbshit. We already are getting the diamonds. And without the blacks where would De Beers get their labour force. Your thesis is flawed from the bottom to the top, and all the way back down again.

 

Actually, De Beers now has enough diamonds and industrial d. stockpiles to flood their own market and depreciate their own monopoly for the next 20 years. So sadly, it appears those black miners have been marked 'expendable/surplus' by the German overlords.

 

That has always been the case. It doesn't stop them digging.

Can you also explain how this fits in?

WASHINGTON, September 28, 2005 – Today De Beers is being honored for its workplace response to HIV/AIDS counseling and testing by the Global Business Coalition on HIV/AIDS (GBC) at its Annual Awards for Business Excellence Gala at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador and actress Angelina Jolie, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton will be featured speakers at the event.

 

It fits in quite comfortably.

The rich always dole out quite alot less than the poor really need for health, safety, and quality of life. Then in church, or through various 'organizations' they make a show of 'helping all the needy' with token gifts designed to keep the desperate just quiet enough not to cut their throats in their sleep while serving them breakfast in bed.

As a poor person, your access to precious resources has no correlation to your need, talent, or ethical standard, but rather how easy it would be for you to kill your master, i.e., security clearance.

This is hardly 'conspiracy' theory. Just effective security surrounding rich greedy criminals.