<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>
Adding Other Fallacies to Predictions
When ungodly thinkers add other fallacies to predictions, they have endless possibilities. Someone could write a book on prediction plus fallacy and never cover all the clever ways to think irrationally. We’ll look into one example.
We can use Quantum Mechanics to predict what semiconductors will do. Therefore, we can use the Theory of Evolution to know how living organisms evolved. ~ Internet Intellectual
We can see this nonsense popping up in discussion groups with many irrational variations. Perhaps someone is teaching this. The statement above looks like what many evolutionists post. However, the full logic blows our minds away if they’ll show us how they reason. When we lay it out, we can’t easily follow it. Check it out:
- Quantum Mechanics guesses what happens behind the scenes in the present.
- Semiconductors follow the predictions of Quantum Mechanics.
o Therefore, we can consider Quantum Mechanics a scientific theory.
Therefore, we can extrapolate from Quantum Mechanics to other conclusions.
We can test those conclusions by making products that work.
- Big Bang guesses what happened in the past.
- Some observations are what we would expect if a big bang took place billions of years ago.
o Therefore, we can consider Big Bang a scientific theory.
Therefore, we can extrapolate from the Big Bang to other conclusions.
- Therefore, a Big Bang happened 13.82 billion years ago.
- When we look at a supernova exploding through a spectrometer, we detect all the known elements.
o Therefore, an exploding supernova formed all the elements.
Therefore, all elements on earth formed in a supernova (perhaps multiple successive supernovae) billions of years ago.
- Therefore, we’re made of stardust.
I hope you found this irrationality as hard to follow as I did. If you ask these people to share their logic, some of them will. They aren’t likely to follow the pattern of the person just mentioned, but they will be irrational.
First Problem: We can see, even with all this complexity, we’re missing some logical steps. We can imagine those logical steps, but we can’t know them for certain. Complex logic and missing logical steps make logical errors easier to hide. Most thinkers don’t bother thinking things through once they get to the conclusion they desire.
Second Problem: Once we allow assumptions into our thinking, our reasoning can go anywhere without limitation. That means you may have heard this argument stated another way. Evolutionists and old-earthers rarely make these claims without smokescreens and innuendo. They use smokescreens and innuendo to hedge their logical errors. If you pin them down, they can change their explanations. They try to wear you out.
Third Problem: The big bang story has repeatedly failed to predict. Scientists continue to adjust it using just-so stories and fudge-factors like dark matter and dark energy. They re-imagine dark matter and dark energy so these mystical phantoms can perform whatever they need them to perform to save the big bang story.
Fourth Problem: Even with the fudge-factors, the big bang story doesn’t predict anything useful. It doesn’t predict anything we can use to make a working product. Quantum Mechanics predicts something scientists and consumers can test. Big bang tells a story about the distant past we can’t test. Therefore, this argument uses mismatched theories and implies what’s true for one is true for the other. But they’re different from each other, so the comparison fails.
Fifth Problem: We can’t test the claim that supernova exploded forming all the elements now on earth. We can look through a spectrometer and see colors (which we interpret to be elements) in the exploding supernova. However, we can’t test whether the elements on earth formed this way. Claiming we’re made of stardust is just an emotional fairytale for adults.
Sixth Problem: The logic uses invalid form, so we can’t trust it to yield a true conclusion even with true premises. At the same time, we must remember no one proved the premises. The premises are bare claims. The premises consist of made-up stuff.
Seventh Problem: If they observe all the elements in supernova, it doesn’t prove their conclusion. They observe something in distant space. They conclude all elements on earth formed in supernovas billions of years ago. That’s irrational. They haven’t proved we’re made of stardust. It doesn’t disprove what God says about how He formed the earth.
When we challenge this logic, persuaders who make this claim may finally tell us their real reasoning. They might change the subject. They might say, “We have to trust science on this issue.” Of course, “science” means the opinion of those scientists who control the message right now. Defining “science” this way is a bandwagon fallacy. The Pope who was the leader of the Holy Roman Empire made this exact mistake when Galileo discovered the earth rotates around the sun. The Pope enforced the opinion of the loudest scientists (the earth-centered universe) and stopped scientific progress. By the way, the earth-centered universe theory, with the Sun going around the earth daily, included a just-so story about mysterious “ethers” that postdicted the observations. The supposed “ethers” did the same work the supposed “dark matter” and “dark energy” now do.
<end quote>
#RealFaith&Reason
Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.
You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf
Follow on
https://mewe.com/i/petrosscientia
https://usa.life/PetrosScientia
https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts
https://www.facebook.com/knowingrealreality
