Understanding Evolution

[justlookinla]

Actually, I didn't think it mockery as much as an observation of fact.

Your expressing the evolutionists believe that humans are birds based on the fact that the progeny of birds will be birds regardless of what they look like, makes you look stupid.

Are you suggesting that the first life form wasn't a bird?

I know that you are trying to make evolutionists appear to be stupid but you're really only showcasing your inability to understand written English.

I'm disputing many of the viewpoints of atheistic Darwinist creationists. Evolutionism.

Event people that disagree with the theory of evolution can see that you're apparent conclusion makes no sense.

Why not?

You wouldn't be the butt of ridicule if you kept your posts from being such a parody of creationism.

There's creationism and then there's creationism. Like there's evolution and then there's evolution.

 

[DerelictJunction]

Are you suggesting that the first life form wasn't a bird?

Of course, no evolutionist on this board has even hinted toward such an abysmally stupid concept as the first life form being a bird.

I'm disputing many of the viewpoints of atheistic Darwinist creationists. Evolutionism.

It would help if you showed you could do more than misunderstand and misrepresent the positions of those to whom you are opposed.

Even people that disagree with the theory of evolution can see that you're apparent conclusion makes no sense.

Why not?

Now you're just taunting. You claim that because evolutionists say the offspring of birds will be birds, they believe the first lifeform was a bird. kinda silly.

There's creationism and then there's creationism. Like there's evolution and then there's evolution.

Then you're only here to make the idea that God created everything look stupid?

 

[Euler]

Now Euler you must try to understand that when we are discussing in a certain context that the context within that discussion must be addressed when raising an objection. The context of the appearance of design was a specific case and not in general. The case in discussion was the appearance in living things and the fine tuning of the universe. They are both very specific features that have specific complexity that due to that specific complexity are considered to have the appearance of design. This appearance of design is due to the appearance that an agent with intent for a purpose set it up. My claim that it is more logical to assume that this appearance in these features of an agent with intent for a purpose is more logical to be an actual agent with intent for a purpose than it is for this specified complexity of life and the fine tuning of the universe to be a product of illusion.

No, you are still terribly wrong.

When you invoke LOGIC as the basis for your argument, you are no longer arguing specific, context-based cases. You are now arguing a PRINCIPLE - ie, that the appearance of design infers actual design. Now, for a PRINCIPLE to hold true, it must hold true for ALL cases that fit its framework. All that needs to be done is to find ONE example that negates the general principle and the principle then ceases to be a justification for EVERY case.

It's a little bit like the challenge thrown out to creationists regarding evolutionary theory. Because the theory is based upon the principle that reproduction causes mutations to occur and that these mutations are filtered by natural selection, leading to the diversity of living things we observe in nested hierarchies, all the creationist has to do is to find ONE example that negates that principle and the whole theory cones crashing down.

Like your claim of intelligent design.

Now, you might want to re-word your claim so that it doesn't rely upon LOGIC.

 

[justlookinla]

Of course, no evolutionist on this board has even hinted toward such an abysmally stupid concept as the first life form being a bird.

The claim has been made that in evolution, birds only produce birds. Explain that.

It would help if you showed you could do more than misunderstand and misrepresent the positions of those to whom you are opposed.

The solution would be to explain one's position when one makes such a statement.

Now you're just taunting. You claim that because evolutionists say the offspring of birds will be birds, they believe the first lifeform was a bird. kinda silly.

I'm waiting on an explanation of why birds only produce birds, why the first life form wasn't a bird.

Then you're only here to make the idea that God created everything look stupid?

There are those here who promote the idea that you and I are products of only random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long long ago who do that position no favors either.

 

[Dizredux]

Then don't try to equate speciation with the creation of new life forms.

Never did. Can you possibly show me where I did this or you just being dishonest again?


Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Never did. Can you possibly show me where I did this or you just being dishonest again?


Dizredux

Didn't say you did. You're the birds are always birds guy, aren't you?

 

[Dizredux]

Dizredux

You do not understand, the mockery and ridicule is about the dishonest and and rather goofy things you say.

Just

Give an example.

I have shown you examples of your dishonesty a number of times. Here is one from the current thread.Just

Darwinist creationism that all of creation is simply the result of time and chance.

You have been shown over and over that evolution is not a product of chance or is random. You have had it carefully explained and demonstrated where this is not true. After all this time, to continue to say this is simply dishonest and rather an odd (goofy) thing to continue to say.


Here is something I posted earlier this year

Why the mockery? You invite it when you say things like natural selection, the weather, earthquakes and volcanoes are random.

You invite it when you keep on saying the same phrases and when asked to support your ideas you simply repeat the phrases over again.

You invite it when people try to engage you in a discussion of your ideas and you continue to repeat the same phrases again over and over.

You invite it when you assert your definition given above but when asked to show where you found it you give a different definition and refuse to acknowledge the difference.

You have been given evidence for the TOE many times and shown that it was not atheistic but refuse to listen or perhaps understand what was said.

I think perhaps the biggest reason is that you present some very out of the main stream ideas and will not consider even the possibility you might be wrong in any way.

And you continue to do and say the same things now with no change as if all the things people have carefully shown you did not exist, were never said.

Just you being the mockery on yourself by saying and doing things like this. Deliberate, willful and intentional ignorance is a form of dishonesty and often comes out as rather strange.


Dizredux

 

[Davian]

an illusion is not a negative and can easily be proven.

It is impossible for anyone to prove that your perception of design is not actual design. You cannot even define or quantify in a testable manner what you mean by the word, can you?

Of course my mind can be tricked and we know this because there is strong evidence of the tricks. I agree colors is perception yet we all believe these colors represents the "Real" world unless proven otherwise which then would be called an illusion.

Your statement is faulty. How would you "prove otherwise" in regards to colours?

It's possible the universe doesn't exist either but I don't assume it's an illusion created by my brain unless proven otherwise. The exact same with designs found in nature.

What designs? Where?

This is why I find atheist illogical.

If I define "theist" as "believes in things imaginary", does that help?

 

[Dizredux]

Just

There is no physical barrier which stops speciation. Speciation doesn't create something other than a bird, a moth, ect. No new life form there.

Diz

Since speciation is not supposed to create a new life form just a somewhat different one, there is no problem there. You know so little about what the TOE says for someone who argues against it so much.

Just

Then don't try to equate speciation with the creation of new life forms.

Diz

Never did. Can you possibly show me where I did this or you just being dishonest again?

Just

Didn't say you did. You're the birds are always birds guy, aren't you?

What a strange conversation, you simply make no sense.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

Dizredux Just I have shown you examples of your dishonesty a number of times. Here is one from the current thread.Just You have been shown over and over that evolution is not a product of chance or is random. You have had it carefully explained and demonstrated where this is not true. After all this time, to continue to say this is simply dishonest and rather an odd (goofy) thing to continue to say.

Forgive me if I don't accept your view as the definitive view. A cornerstone of Atheistic Darwinist creationism certainly includes the view that the creation of humanity includes randomness, chance.

"Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random."​

Misconceptions: Life Changed by “Chance”

Here is something I posted earlier this year

And you continue to do and say the same things now with no change as if all the things people have carefully shown you did not exist, were never said.

Just you being the mockery on yourself by saying and doing things like this. Deliberate, willful and intentional ignorance is a form of dishonesty and often comes out as rather strange.


Dizredux

Disagreeing and disputing your view of evolutionary creationism isn't "willful and intentional ignorance". Only your misplaced sense of superiority would concoct such a view.

 

[bhsmte]

Just Diz Just DizJust What a strange conversation, you simply make no sense.

Dizredux

The goal is not to make sense, the goal is to deny, deny, deny, to protect a fundamentalist belief.

 

[justlookinla]

Just Diz Just DizJust What a strange conversation, you simply make no sense.

Dizredux

Once again, you're the birds are always birds guy, aren't you?

 

[Dizredux]

Forgive me if I don't accept your view as the definitive view. A cornerstone of Atheistic Darwinist creationism certainly includes the view that the creation of humanity includes randomness, chance.

But that is not what your said, you said that

Darwinist creationism that all of creation is simply the result of time and chance.

You were not talking about randomness being a *part* of evolution (which it is) but that chance (randomness) and time are the only factors involved.

The amazing thing was for you to come back with this to support your statement:

"Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random."

I mean this goes totally away from your statement about time and chance.

This is so confused that I doubt it is dishonesty but instead that your reading comprehension skills are so bad that you misunderstand not only what others write but what you write.

Don't you realize that it looks like you have a major problem in reading comprehension and that it has a huge negative impact on what you post? You can get help on this you know.

Dizredux

 

[justlookinla]

But that is not what your said, you said that You were not talking about randomness being a *part* of evolution (which it is) but that chance (randomness) and time are the only factors involved.

You've apparently missed my hundreds of posts describing atheistic Darwinist creationism. Randomness is only one part of the faith based view, as I've repeatedly pointed out in my post, but there are other factors as I've posted a few hundred times now. I really don't expect you to acknowledge these words of yours nor the response which contradicts your view.....

DIZ: "You have been shown over and over that evolution is not a product of chance or is random. You have had it carefully explained and demonstrated where this is not true. After all this time, to continue to say this is simply dishonest and rather an odd (goofy) thing to continue to say."​

Others disagree with you, not only me....

"Chance is certainly a factor in evolution, but there are also non-random evolutionary mechanisms. Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation, however natural selection, the process by which some variants survive and others do not, is not random."​

Misconceptions: Life Changed by “Chance”

The amazing thing was for you to come back with this to support your statement:
I mean this goes totally away from your statement about time and chance.

Oh, there's more.....

"Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but. Natural selection favours mutations that provide some advantage (see Evolution promotes the survival of species), and the physical world imposes very strict limits on what works and what doesn't. The result is that organisms evolve in particular directions."​

Evolution myths: Evolution is random - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

This is so confused that I doubt it is dishonesty but instead that your reading comprehension skills are so bad that you misunderstand not only what others write but what you write.

Don't you realize that it looks like you have a major problem in reading comprehension and that it has a huge negative impact on what you post? You can get help on this you know.

Dizredux

Want to change your mind concerning your "evolution is not a product of chance or is random" stance?

 

[Smidlee]

It is impossible for anyone to prove that your perception of design is not actual design. You cannot even define or quantify in a testable manner what you mean by the word, can you?

This is like saying it's impossible to prove our perception of the universe is not the actual universe. In order to detect "design" one must have an intelligent designed brain. (the same is required to "see" colors) A rock doesn't see "design" in nature.

Your statement is faulty. How would you "prove otherwise" in regards to colours?

There are optical illusion that can trick your brain to change colors from what shown on the monitor.

What designs? Where?

How about that piece of fat between your ears? Let's included the ears while we are at it.

If I define "theist" as "believes in things imaginary", does that help?

Atheist also "believes in things imaginary". That would be a illogical statement. Evolutionist will use "imaginary" as a defense, Ex: "just because you can't imagine how something could evolved doesn't mean it didn't."

 

[Davian]

This is like saying it's impossible to prove our perception of the universe is not the actual universe. In order to detect "design" one must have an intelligent designed brain. (the same is required to "see" colors) A rock doesn't see "design" in nature.

Let's not move the goalposts too quickly. You cannot even define or quantify in a testable manner what you mean by "design", can you?

There are optical illusion that can trick your brain to change colors from what shown on the monitor.

How would you "prove otherwise" in regards to colours? If I say it looks green, how would you prove me wrong?

How about that piece of fat between your ears? Let's included the ears while we are at it.

What units did your use to measure that?

Atheist also "believes in things imaginary". That would be a illogical statement.

Indeed, atheism is not a truth statement.

Evolutionist will use "imaginary" as a defense, Ex: "just because you can't imagine how something could evolved doesn't mean it didn't."

You cannot even get your fallacies straight even while you use them.

The word you were looking for was "incredulity", as in "the argument from..."

See why I do not try to have a serious exchange with you?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why not?

-_- because a deity creating life doesn't in and of itself mean life can't arise independently of a deity. How hard is that to understand? Grass can grow without human intervention, and yet our lawns are the work of our efforts nevertheless. The fact that we actively grow grass doesn't mean we have to actively intervene for grass to actually grow, generally speaking.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Forgive me if I don't accept your view as the definitive view. A cornerstone of Atheistic Darwinist creationism certainly includes the view that the creation of humanity includes randomness, chance.
. . . . .

There it is again, the blind, unrelenting view that accepting evolution means being an atheist. Since there are clearly many who believe in God and accept evolution, and since that has been pointed out many many times, those who continue to post like this should expect their ability to rationally discuss issues to be questioned.

 

[Kylie]

Done. I'd be interested in seeing the results!

ALso got my hubby to do it as well. Needless to say, as a Christian, he gave different answers to me for some of them!

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is completely false. You can't claim that the evidence of design is an illusion and in the same breath claim that there is no evidence of design. Do you see the problem there?

I see the problem, yes.

The problem is in your language.
There is no evidence of design. There is only you with a subjective opinion about things appearing to be designed. That is not evidence. That's just your opinion.