Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No we've seen no such thing.Colossians said:So far we have seen the evolutionists running helter skelter for cover, bluffing all the way.
Of course there's a 10. It comes right between 9 and 11. What this has tro do with evolution is still a mystery.One of their camp has embarrassed them, admitting there is indeed a '10'.
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.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).
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.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.
There never was, as we've been telling you. Your pride has made you deaf as well as blind.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.
And may her hair fall out too, right?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.
NO THERE IS NOT. That's what we've been telling you.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.
You've called it '10.' We've called it gibberish.Or as we have called it: '10'.
From your imagination. Certainly not from evolutionary theory.All they need to tell us now is where they got their '10' come from.
I think you want the politics forum.(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".)
Airpo just discovered the missing links!AirPo said:Hey!
Why is 6 afraid of 7?
Because 7 8 9!!!
Wow so many strawman arguments, so many fallacies.Colossians said: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.
Colossians said: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.
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.einstein314emc2 said: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.
PhantomLlama said:Argumentum Ad Napajohn
(one for the vets.)
I like yours better than mine, it is more subtleeinstein314emc2 said:argumentum ad somnium
i believe this means argument from nonsense
Argumentum Ad Napajohn
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?