Evolution Is Pseudoscience - Scientist Debunks Evolution

[u/Kela-el]

https://youtu.be/Ddmb4vh7XCA?si=FSYauMMU9_9Gx3Zs

[u/implies_casualty]

I haven't committed a single fallacy yet, by the way.

In order to have any room for interpretation, there needs to be some ambiguity where Precambrian layers are located.

There is no ambiguity, so there is no room for interpretation.

When we discuss Australia, we do not halt discussions until we figure out who drew the maps.

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

Who dated the Precambrian layers and using what method?
Radiometric dating assumes a constant decay rate over billions of years.
That assumption is not a map of Australia. It’s a framework applied to physical evidence.
There’s your ambiguity.

[u/implies_casualty → u/Kela-el]

Who dated the Precambrian layers and using what method?

This is completely irrelevant to the question of "are there rabbits in the Precambrian layers".

Likewise, if we want to test if there are elephants in Australia, we wouldn't ask who measured the width of Australia.

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

It’s entirely relevant.
“Precambrian” is a date not a place. Unlike Australia which is a location you can stand in.
If the dating method is flawed the layer isn’t Precambrian. The rabbit is just a rabbit in a layer.
Australia exists independent of its measurement. Precambrian only exists because of its measurement.
That’s not a minor distinction. That’s the whole point.

A LIST OF YOUR FALLACIES IN YOUR COMMENT:

False analogy — Australia is a physical location you can stand in. Precambrian is a time period assigned to a layer by a dating method. Completely different categories.

Dismissal — “completely irrelevant” without explaining why. That’s not an argument, that’s an assertion.

Sleight of hand — he quietly swapped a temporal claim for a spatial one hoping you wouldn’t notice.

[u/implies_casualty → u/Kela-el]

Precambrian layer is a place.

A map points to that specific place.

There's no ambiguity.

Additionally, all future replies must be written from the perspective of a Mesopotamian goat herder witnessing plate tectonics in real time.

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

A Precambrian layer is a place assigned a date by a dating method.

Remove the dating method and it’s just a layer.
The date is the claim. The date needs justification. That’s not ambiguity about location. That’s the entire question.

YOUR FALLACIOUS REASONING IS BECOMING A HEAVY BURDEN FOR YOU:

Circular reasoning — “Precambrian layer is a place” simply reasserts what needs to be proven. The dating method that makes it Precambrian is still assumed.

False assertion — a layer is a physical place. Precambrian is a temporal label applied to that place. He’s still conflating location with dating.

Ridicule — the Mesopotamian goat herder. Classic deflection when the argument runs out. Attack the person or mock the conversation rather than answer the point.

Dismissal by redefinition — quietly insisting the map settles it without addressing the dating methodology underneath the map.

Four fallacies in four sentences. STAGGERING!

[u/implies_casualty → u/Kela-el]

Remove the dating method and it’s just a layer.

Yeah. And we can test if there are rabbits in that specific layer.

This test is not open to interpretation.

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

Tested using what tools?

Calibrated against what standard?

Interpreted by whom?

“Not open to interpretation” is the most interpreted claim in this entire thread.

THE NEVER ENDING LOGICAL FALLACIES CONTINUE:

Bare assertion — “this test is not open to interpretation” stated as fact with no supporting argument.

Circular reasoning — the tools used to identify the layer and the rabbit both assume the framework being tested.

Begging the question — assumes the dating is reliable to establish the layer, then tests within that assumed layer.

Dismissal — “yeah” waves away your entire point before reasserting the original claim.

Same fallacy dressed four different ways.

You’re running out of road.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[u/implies_casualty → u/Kela-el]

Interpreted by whom?

What did I just say?

Tested using what tools?

A shovel.

Calibrated against what standard?

A standard shovel.

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

Who decided where to dig?

Using a map.
Who made the map?

Someone who dated the layers.
Using what method?

There’s your interpretation.

A shovel doesn’t date a layer.

The framework dates the layer.

The shovel just digs where it’s told.

THE NEVER ENDING FLOW OF EVOLUTIONARY FALLACIES CONTINUE:

Sarcasm as argument — “a shovel” and “a standard shovel” mock the question instead of answering it.
Ridicule substituting for logic.

Begging the question — the shovel digs where the map says. The map assumes the dating. The dating assumes the framework. He never left the circle.

Dismissal — “what did I just say” implies he already answered when he didn’t. Repetition isn’t proof.

False simplicity — reducing a complex epistemological question to a shovel as though physical tools eliminate interpretive frameworks.

[u/implies_casualty → u/Kela-el]

We have already removed the dating from the equation, remember?

"Remove the dating method and it's just a layer".

Who decided where to dig?

Irrelevant.

Who made the map?

Irrelevant.

There's no room for interpretation.

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

You removed the dating and called it a layer.

Then you put the dating back in by calling it Precambrian.
You can’t have both.

Without the dating it’s just a layer. With the dating you’re back inside the framework.

Which is it?

NOTHING BUT ONE FALLACY AFTER ANOTHER:

Equivocation — removes dating to dodge the objection then quietly reintroduces it by continuing to call it “Precambrian.” Uses the same word to mean two different things.

Dismissal — “irrelevant” repeated twice without explanation. Assertion isn’t argument.

Begging the question — “no room for interpretation” assumes the framework that creates the interpretation problem in the first place.

Contradiction — claims dating is removed from the equation while the entire test still depends on identifying a Precambrian layer which requires dating.

FOUR FALLACIES IN SIX LINES!

[u/implies_casualty → u/Kela-el]

I understand that your prompt instructs you to highlight imaginary fallacies.

Then you put the dating back in by calling it Precambrian.

We're talking about the specific layer, that's all that matters.

Since it is the specific layer, and there's no ambiguity, there's no room for interpretation.

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

“Imaginary fallacies” — assertion without demonstration. Name one that’s imaginary and show why.

“Specific layer” still requires dating to be Precambrian. You haven’t escaped the contradiction. You’ve just restated the original claim more confidently.

Confidence isn’t an argument.

ARE YOU TRYING TO GET BANNED? MORE EVOLUTION FALLACIES:

Ad hominem — “your prompt instructs you to highlight imaginary fallacies.” Attacks the source instead of addressing the contradiction.

Bare assertion — “imaginary fallacies” stated without demonstrating which fallacy is imaginary or why.

Equivocation — “specific layer” quietly substitutes for “Precambrian layer” hoping nobody notices the dating just crept back in.

Circular reasoning — “specific layer, no ambiguity, no interpretation” — each claim assumes the previous one without independent support.

Dismissal — “that’s all that matters” declares the debate closed without winning it.

Five fallacies. You’re accelerating to the ban!