10

[PhantomLlama]

Colossians, have you considered the possibility that the reason the evolutionists are telling you that you are misunderstanding evolution might be because you are misunderstanding evolution?

Just a possibility that you don't seem to have considered yet, that I feel deserves thought.

 

[AirPo]

Maybe through 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Hey!

Why is 6 afraid of 7?


Because 7 8 9!!!

 

[Physics_guy]

Wow, this guy might actually make John look humble and coherent.

I love sophists, they are so awed by their own mindless ramblings that they aren't even capable of looking beyond their own words. This type of pathological behavior just amuses me more than any other.

Thanks for the laughs Colossian.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So far we have seen the evolutionists running helter skelter for cover, bluffing all the way.

No we've seen no such thing.

One of their camp has embarrassed them, admitting there is indeed a '10'.

Of course there's a 10. It comes right between 9 and 11. What this has tro do with evolution is still a mystery.

The others have sought to focus on Latin lessons, in the absence of any counter argument. One has even departed from traditional evolutionary terminology in declaring that the word "primitive" is not in their vocabulary (the lengths these guys will go to when up in a corner).

There must be an argument before there can be a counter argument. Your pride has blinded you to the fact that your example has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

If it make you feel better, it's a clever argument, if irrelevant.

Jet Black has told us that evolution might eventually result in its demise: poof! goes any future recourse he will have to concepts which propose better suitability as that which cements the future of species. According to him, evolution has no direction.

And it does not. Evolution is merely the reaction to environmental stimulus at the time. Times change. Today's "advantage" might lead to extinction tomorrow.

Basicallly, we have caught these guys out: they are so annoyed they are abandoning ship and washing their hands of commonly accepted evolutionary concepts. All of a sudden there is no such thing as "more complex", "higher complexity", "less primitive", "upward progression"....etc.

There never was, as we've been telling you. Your pride has made you deaf as well as blind.

The one who admitted to the existence of '10' has even gone to the purile extent of asking us to define "good". Perhaps her children will remind her of what it is not.

And may her hair fall out too, right?
Isn't casting curses on people who point out the holes in your argument a form of ad hom?

But at least the reason these proponents of eccentric reason come on to debate, is consistent with their concept of evolution: they believe there is ultimately, upward direction in everything.

NO THERE IS NOT. That's what we've been telling you.

Or as we have called it: '10'.

You've called it '10.' We've called it gibberish.

All they need to tell us now is where they got their '10' come from.

From your imagination. Certainly not from evolutionary theory.

(Just to help them who have trouble with abstracts, along, we will remind them that '10' is found in their intuition, and in their perception. It forms the basis for their complaints against wasteful governments; it tells them when to cut the grass; it gives them warm fuzzy feelings when they talk of world-peace; it forms the foundational philosophical premise for their bizarre school of thought called "evolution".)

I think you want the politics forum.

 

[Jet Black]

Hey!

Why is 6 afraid of 7?


Because 7 8 9!!!

Airpo just discovered the missing links!

 

[einstein314emc2]

The evolutionist, we have pointed out on other threads, builds his platform on a logical redundancy.
When you ask him how such and such evolved, he will answer you with a description of its current utility, and suggest that those without such utility were culled by natural selection. As we have pointed out, his position is summed up by the parody "post hoc ergo propter hoc", which is to say "after the fact, therefore before the fact".



But evolutionists have trouble grasping abstract concepts, so this thread is designed to put the issue into a simple framework.

Let us use the number '4' to represent the current state of a supposed evolved entity.
Let us use the number '1' to represent a catalytic situation, or some assistance/partnership, on route to the number '5'.
Let us use the number '5' to represent an intermediary utility/purpose of '4'.
Let us use the number '10' to represent an ultimate utility/purpose of '4'.



The dialogue:
Creationist: "how did '4' evolve?"
Evolutionist: "because '4' had an advantage over '3': it could combine with '1' to form '5', instead of having to combining with two lots of '1'".
Creationist: "so?"
Evolutionist: "so '5' was needed because it fits exactly two times into '10'!".
Creationist: "but that is only so because '10' divided by '2' produces '5'! Why is it that '10' exists in the first place? Where did it come from?"

(The evolutionist, realising there is something missing in his reasoning at this point, but not really wanting to find out what, immediately invokes his higher-than-usual evolved thought-blocking ability, and declares proudly but irrelevantly: "natural selection!".)


For over a century now, we have still not heard from the evolutionist the reason for the existence of '10'. In the absence of such explanation, all he is doing is working within the confines of a superset called "purpose" of which he is unaware. Accordingly, his argument is nothing more than a living corollary. It is redundant from the very start.

Wow so many strawman arguments, so many fallacies.
Anyway boiling it down, you seem to be asking "where did life originate." Although this doesn't concern evolution, science does have an answer.

Transitions from Nonliving to Living Matter
Protocell
Miller-Urey Experiment

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Now if 6 turned out to be 9
I don't mind, I don't mind
If all the hippies cut off all their hair
I don't care, oh I don't care.
Dig.

 

[Sopharos]

The one who admitted to the existence of '10' has even gone to the purile extent of asking us to define "good". Perhaps her children will remind her of what it is not.

Well, go on then, define "good" in the context of evolution.

 

[Jet Black]

Wow so many strawman arguments, so many fallacies.
Anyway boiling it down, you seem to be asking "where did life originate." Although this doesn't concern evolution, science does have an answer.

no, he seems to be asking whz we have such complex brains, which seem to far outstrip evolutionary requirements. he is foolishly making the error that natural selection is the only form of selection.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Wow, this thread introduces an entirely new fallacy, arguement from making no frikkin sense (henceforth called arguement from idiocy). It goes [Random senseless statement] [Lots of "What are you talking about" type of posts] [Ha, you can't refute it! I win!].

 

[AirPo]

henceforth called arguement from idiocy.

How would you say that in Latin?

 

[Asimov]

this thread is the best I've seen in awhile. I've never laughed so hard!

 

[Asimov]

On a more serious note...collosians, you claim that you are no novice to debate, yet you never debate, you merely parrot what other people say and make fun of it.

A debate is an INTELLIGENT exchange of opposing ideas.

 

[Jet Black]

How would you say that in Latin?

argumentum ad stupiditas

 

[PhantomLlama]

How would you say that in Latin?

Argumentum Ad Napajohn

(one for the vets. )

 

[einstein314emc2]

argumentum ad somnium

i believe this means argument from nonsense

 

[Jet Black]

Argumentum Ad Napajohn

(one for the vets. )

I can think of a few others too :looks around suspiciously:

whatever happened to napa anyway?

 

[Jet Black]

argumentum ad somnium

i believe this means argument from nonsense

I like yours better than mine, it is more subtle

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

Argumentum Ad Napajohn

If we added a few "fool" quotes on it, it could be

Argumentum Ad Orange

 

[Freodin]

I pondered long if I should give this thread a try. For what I have read and experienced in other Colossians-Threads, I don´t expect that my answer will receive any meaningfull comment, but whatever...

The problem I see with the OP is that Collosians assumes a principle in science that is not there, while he ignores the principles that are there.

He assumes that there is an "ultimate purpose" that is different from the current state, but is to be achived by Evolution - this is incorrect.

It is not that a "10" does not exist - it is the "4" and "5" of his example that do not exist.
(Correction: they do exist, but only in very specific instances - when there is a major enviromental change)


On the other hand he ignores that science does not look for a way to explain what ought to be, but what is.

Transferred to his funny numeral example:

"There is a 4. Now if we assume that this has come from evolutionary processes, we should find a 2 and a 3 in certain other situations. There should also not be a -3.1415 anywhere"
*** looks for 2, 3 and -3.1415 ***
*** finds 2 and 3 - does not find -3.1415 ***
"Ok, it seems that our hypothesis of the evolution of 4 concurs with other existing observations."