August 18, 2012

Logic Lessons: Insufficient Evidence

In my dealings with evolutionists, I have been amazed at the number of logical fallacies that I have encountered. Many of them stand alone, but many others are combined into a Chaotic Crawling Casserole of Illogic. That is, there are so many errors, conversation becomes almost impossible and you're much better off watching reruns of "Columbo".

Among the logical fallacies I have encountered (in English) are:

  • Attacking the person instead of discussing the topic
  • "You do it too!"
  • Appealing to numbers, as in, "Everybody believes this way" (or "Bandwagon") to the extreme of accepting evolution on faith, not evidence
  • Confusing cause and effect
  • Straw man (misrepresenting the beliefs of creationists, ID proponents, Christians, the other political party &c. and then ridiculing the caricature that was made up)
  • Appealing to emotion
  • Appealing to unqualified authority
  • Hasty generalizations
  • Appeal to faith in scientism ("Science will some day find or prove such and so")
  • Outright lies
Well, that's enough. You get the idea.

But I want to focus on one of the most common errors that I have encountered with evolutionists: The Fallacy of Exclusion (suppressed evidence). I cannot count the number of times that evolutionists and atheists have not bothered to do their homework, and they presume to tell me what I believe (prejudicial conjecture).


Perhaps their straw man arguments are accidental, perhaps not. But I have found that many of my opponents are dismally ignorant of the Bible, creation science — and evolution itself. Some inadvertently make a straw man out of the position that they are attempting to support!


Anyway, the Fallacy of Exclusion is quite simple:

Leaving out evidence that would lead to a different conclusion is called the fallacy of exclusion. An example is: In the presidential elections of 2000 and 2005, Florida went to Bush, so it must be a Republican state. In fact, the evidence from 1996, which I purposely excluded from the sentence above, shows that Florida went to Clinton in that election, making this, too, a fallacy of insufficient evidence. By choosing to begin with the data from 2000, I was able to exclude evidence that contradicted the conclusion I wished to draw for the sake of this exercise.
The fallacy of insufficient evidence (which includes suppressed evidence) occurs when someone will reach a conclusion through carelessness as well as neglecting or suppressing contrary evidence.
When dealing with information that affects someone's worldview, it is almost criminal to leave out contrary evidence. It is certainly unethical and immoral. Let me be blunt, since I am showing some emotion on this material anyway: Suppressing evidence against evolution is not "science", it is brainwashing. That's right, I said it! How can someone make a proper determination about the origins of life, the universe and everything if the evidence is missing?

Creationist scientists are attacked for being "not scientists", and that is an outright lie. Indeed, scientists who are creationists must have an understanding of evolutionary interpretations to be able to properly present both creationist and evolutionist viewpoints. Creationist laymen, when educated properly, also must have an understanding of evolution so they can evaluate and present their evidence.

This article can become oppressively long if I bring in my encounters with atheists, so I will not go much further.


I insist, however, that evolutionists do not have sufficient understanding of the creationists' viewpoints. Incomplete information leads to horribly wrong conclusions. The true spirit of scientific inquiry does not inspire suppression and misrepresentation of the evidence. Rather, it inspires more complete understanding of the subject.


The following humorous short video is all over the Web, and it illustrates what I am saying so well:


Do Sunni Rebels Have ANY Compunction?

In World War 2, one strategy was to beat your enemy into submission by bombing population centers into nonexistence. Military targets were the priority, but the people were not entirely off-limits.

Fast forward >> to the Gulf Wars and into today. Surgical strikes against military targets, with great effort to minimize civilian casualties (if we can tell the difference between civilians and cowardly, non-uniformed terrorists combatants, that is). Some missions have been aborted because of the risk to civilians. This principle appears to apply to Israeli forces as well.

However, cowardly terrorist combatants not only refuse to wear uniforms, they even use human shields. This cowardice extends to the deliberate personal murders of entire families, and hanging children after the rest of the family has been murdered. (Many words come to mind, but I am attempting to restrain profanity and will settle for "low-life, cowardly, murdering scumbag weasel losers".) Religion of Peace cleric Mohammad al-Arifi says to go ahead, just try to keep pictures out of the press. What a scumbag weasel. OK, so I detest bullies. Especially the kind that have no conscience and commit brutal murders. Can't remain clinically detached and "objective" all the time, can we?
Terrorists in Syria hanged a small Shiite child after killing all his family members in Damascus, human rights activists in Iraq unveiled on Monday.

According to a report by Iraq's Qanon news website, Iraqi human rights activists said that armed rebel groups attacked the house of a Shiite Iraqi family in the Seyede Zainab neighborhood in the capital city of Damascus, killed all members of the family and hanged the last one, a little child.

The footages and pictures of the rebels' brutality which surfaced online in the last few days are revealing the terrorist nature and the war crimes of the opposition fighters in Syria.
You can read the rest of this report on the vicious cowardly weasels here.

Religion of Peace: Hezbollah At Play

Everyone deserves some rest and relaxation. And the rocket-firing-at-civilians, anti-Conservative-propaganda-spreading terrorist organization Hezbollah has just the place!


August 17, 2012

Did Mohammed Exist? Unbelievable Debate!

A bit of a play on words in the title. Justin Brierley's show "Unbelievable?" has people debating, whether it's atheists and Christians, liberal and conservative Christians, world religions and other things. I am not a huge fan of the show, but it does get my interest on occasion.

This episode was interesting. The topic was whether or not Mohammed even existed, and if there is historical evidence to support the idea. Like other Mohammedan "scholars" in debates, Adnan Rashid showed hostility, ignorance, kept going off topic and exhibited dishonesty. Robert Spencer called him on it numerous times, eventually getting a bit perturbed himself. Heck, so would I. (Dr. James White is acquainted with Rashid's nonsense.) Rashid came out of the gate attacking the historicity of Jesus and attacking Spencer's character.

August 16, 2012

Strange Searches — Evidence

I am going to use the search term "sentence" here to make a point:


As usual, the searcher may have been putting words together to make the best use of the search engine. But I am going to go with it anyway. Please pay attention: There is no such thing as Christian or creationist evidence per se. We all have the same facts; a fact is a fact. The disagreement happens in the interpretations of the facts. Evolutionists have their interpretations, models, explanations and whatever else. Creationists have their interpretations, models, explanations and whatever else as well.

There is no such thing as your facts and my facts, capice?

August 14, 2012

Logic Lessons: What Do You See, Feel and Think?

A righteous man has regard for the life of his animal,
But even the compassion of the wicked is cruel.
Proverbs 12.10 NASB

This picture was circulating on Facebook and has upset quite a few people. There are over 30,000 comments on the main photo and 176,000 "shares". No idea how many total with all of the comments on the shared versions. I saw several comments where people wanted to personally harm and even kill the man in the picture. I'm warning you, it is upsetting to animal lovers. Be sure to read this all the way through.

Click for Larger; Picture is viral, original source not found.
From your initial glance, what do you feel? Outrage? A desire to hurt the guy? Sorry for the puppy?

Now, what do you see? A fellow forcing a puppy to drink vodka? Animal abuse?

In addition to the rage that was expressed, some interesting comments and observations were made. There is considerable argument about whether or not the cap is on the bottle in the first place. Others suggested that the bottle was tipped away from the camera so that the neck was not even in the dog's mouth. Also, there is no sign that there is any pouring happening because you can see the bubble in the bottom of the bottle, and no motion in the neck and sides of the bottle. We do not see liquid running out of the dog's mouth and onto the floor.

We also do not know that the clear liquid in the bottle is vodka — it could have been refilled with water.

While the puppy does show discomfort, it may not be forced to drink vodka or anything else.

My point is that emotions are easily fired up into overdrive. In this case, we have "filled in the blanks" in our minds. But in reality, we do not have all the facts. People get emotional and react without thinking. Especially when there is a hot button issue involved.

On a related note, something came to my attention while this article was in process. A homosexual man was a victim celebrity. His bruised face was in the news, as was his claim that he was a victim of "gay bashing". While such a thing does happen and it's wrong, this guy flat-out lied about it. He failed to do a back flip, messed up his face, claimed to be a victim, then was caught in his lie.

Consider this (the hint of the century): People love to believe negative things. Ponder that for a while and I think you'll agree. (For that matter, my own haters detest admitting that I'm right about anything, even things they agree with. But give them something to complain about, and yeeeeee haw, they're fussing up a storm.) Negativity sells. How many good things are on the evening news?

Did you notice that this is typed in an angry shade of red? I'm trying to make some points here, people! In several posts, I have attempted to show that wording can provoke our emotions as well. This one is about visuals.

Think before believing and reacting. Especially in this manipulative political season. Did we have our emotions manipulated by the picture? It is a distinct possibility. More likely, it was our own imaginations reacting without full knowledge of the circumstances. Was it an instance of animal abuse? Nope! The cap was on the bottle, and no animal abuse happened!

Subscribe in a reader