1. If p, then q.Seems simple enough, but it leaves out the possibility of other explanations. As Jason Lisle illustrates:
2. We have q.
3. Therefore, p.
1. If it's snowing, it must be cold outside.Not hardly!
2. It's cold outside.
3. Therefore, it's snowing out.
Let's use this in a way that Darwinists do it:
1. If evolution is true, then DNA will be found in living organisms.
2. DNA is found in living organisms.
3. Therefore, evolution is true.
|Made through the Chalkboard Message Generator at Add Letters|
Let's take a look-see at a bigger picture — which is something Darwinists really need to do so they won't embarrass themselves so often. Let's let a creationist provide more information.
If two students hand in an assignment containing exactly the same mistakes, their teacher will rightly suspect that one (or both) has been copying the other’s work. This is because the chance of them independently making the same mistakes is very small. Similarly, when an identical mutation is found in the DNA of apes and humans, evolutionists claim that the only reasonable explanation is that the mutation occurred in a common ancestor and was then passed down to its descendants.To read the rest (and some interesting short technical short articles), click on "Mistakes about mistakes".
There are many parts of our DNA that look like virus DNA, and some evolutionists argue that this shows that these parts of our DNA came from viruses. Our ancestors, they say, were infected by viruses which added DNA to our ancestors’ DNA, and this was then passed down to us. These short stretches of genetic material are often referred to as ERVs (Endogenous RetroViruses; see box) and are said to be ‘junk’ having no useful purpose. Since we sometimes find the same ERVs in the same locations in the DNA of apes and humans, evolutionists claim that ERVs provide strong evidence for evolution. The probability, they say, of the same viruses randomly inserting the same stretches of DNA in the same locations in human and ape DNA is negligible. It is far more likely, they say, that a common ancestor passed on its ERVs to both humans and apes.
As convincing as it sounds, however, closer examination reveals serious flaws in this argument.