What popular circular reasoning do evolutionists use to prove as they say, that evolution is fact?!?

Answer 1

Circular Reasoning (begging the question, special pleading, petitio principii, a priori reasoning)
Definition: Assuming what needs to be proved.
Catch-phrase: Horoscopes prove astrology.
Examples: Tautologies (boys will be boys, a rose is a rose, it’s not over till it’s over, 4 - 2 = 9 - 7, deafness is caused by hearing loss, all bachelors are unmarried men, nothing succeeds like success, we have nothing to fear but fear itself, things are as they are because they were as they were, tomorrow will be like today only more so, the meaning of life is to live a life of meaning, etc.): Natural Selection translates into survival of the survivors or the fitness of the fit. Using index fossils to date the rock layers, and then using the rock layers to date the fossils they contain. Using homology both as explanation of evolution and proof for it: “If an intelligent being had designed both a fish and Sophia Loren from scratch, there’s no way, if evolution hadn’t occurred, that her arm would have had any internal resemblance to a fish’s [sic]. The similarity in anatomy is clear evidence of evolution; the fish’s forelimb [sic] and Sophia’s show a common ancestry” (Jared Diamond, Discover 6/85, p.91 Using the geologic column as descriptive of evolution and also as evidence for it Assuming long ages for radioactive half-lives, then using them to prove long ages. Inventing a term as if it explains something: e.g., convergent evolution used as both an explanation and an evidence for Darwinian origin of like characteristics in unlike organisms.
Cohen’s Law: What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts – not the facts themselves.

Answer 2

I am an evolutionist and I don't claim that evolution has been proven to be fact. It is a Theory with a lot of supporting evidence. I believe it is true but that is different than saying it has been proven to be fact. Can you name the three popular circular arguments put forth to prove the existence of God?

Answer 3

Is it the citation of homology, similarity due to common ancestry, as evidence of common ancestry? If so, it's not really a circular argument. Homology is now defined as "similarity due to common ancestry," but it originally referred to the similarity only. Homology emerged as a pattern of similarities in different species, most notable in the cases of similarities that seemed to lack functionality. Common ancestry has been adopted as the most reasonable explanation.

The majority of the body of mainstream scientists are sufficiently conversant with how the scientific method and deductive reasoning work that they will not be caught in an actual circular argument, although it could appear otherwise to someone who was not as familiar with the topic under discussion.

Answer 4

It's the creationists that use circular reasoning. Click on this site, and if you can disprove what it says, you can claim to know what you are talking about. http://evolution.berkeley.edu

Answer 5

We use these tricky, evil concepts like the "scientific method", "openmindedness", and "evidence".

Seeing as how your conclusion is steadfast and irrational (Genesis, I'm assuming), these are probably foreign concepts to you.

Answer 6

deductive reasoning???