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.
Nonono, you are right only partially. See the problems with evilutionits and their man-made theorys is that it is that the intrinsic manifestation of the ultimate utilitity is incontigent with the nature of such manifestation, it is neither possible, nor contrivable. From ontological empiricism, it is known that it is the result of an unequivocally invalid weltanschauung and it fails, miserably and consistently, as a aphorisitic definition of life. It claims is a theory for life, however, it fails at life for the veracity of such a formulation is, as aforementioned, is incontingent with its immediate and meta-immediate epistomological implications. Evilution is false, both contingently and metaphysically.
Now since evilutionist are dum and stupid, let's dumb it down for them:
Let us use
to represent the wavefunction for the evolution state of an individual with time t.
Let us use the LaPlace Transform
to represent the evolution of the system with a vector parametrization of s.
Let us use
to represent the tensorial manifold which drives evilutionary geometry.
Let us use
to represent the 4-vector renormalization of the evilutionary dichotomy that stems from the nature of its manifestation.
(The evilutionist, realizes 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: "PIZZA!".)
Since the dawn of the proto-existentialist, it has been unbiquitously pellucid that the entrenched ontology is redolent of the disestablishmentarianism that is this gnomic representation. blah blah blah blah philosophy blah ergo, concordantly, vis-a-vis, aifjoegklrgaerlkgjsafda ls;kjg aglaerk jgaer g Therefore, evilution is false.