Replies

The fallacy of affirming the consequent is structured as: P predicts Q, Q is observed; therefore P is supported. As I said immediately after the sentence you quoted below, "This is and always will be a logical fallacy." And you said you agreed with it in post 38, see below. The only thing you were confused about was not recognizing that you had provided the quote containing the fallacy, but that's where the exchange began, no?

"Evolution predicts 'change' (your quote), 'Change' is observed; therefore evolution is 'supported'."

"Although I agree with most of the content above, I'd like you to direct readers to the source of what you call "your quote.""

Now you say absolutely not. Do you think that ignoring logical fallacy means it doesn't exist? No?

Fallacy of affirming the consequent ... Example

(1) If Fred wanted to get me sacked then he’d go and have a word with the boss.
(2) There goes Fred to have a word with the boss.
Therefore:
(3) Fred wants to get me sacked.

You claim …

The fallacy of affirming the consequent is structured as: P predicts Q, Q is observed; therefore P is supported

Whereas I’d claim …

The fallacy of affirming the consequent is structured as: P predicts Q, Q is observed; therefore P is conclusively proven.

Words mean things.