10

[Colossians]

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.

 

[Logic]

I'm completely, utterly, dumbfounded.

 

[Intrepid99]

Unamiously, this is the last straw to break the camels back!!!

 

[Nathan Poe]

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".

Actually, post hoc ergo propter hoc means "after this, therefore because of this."

Let's see if your logic is any better than your Latin...

EDITED TO ADD: Whoops, I peeked ahead. It's worse.

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

Time for your next Latin Lesson: Can you translate Ad Hominem?

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'.

What number do we use to represent what on God's green Earth are you talking about?

Error #1: Evolution is not a predetermined sequence of events like numbers.
Error #2: Evolution has no "ultimate" goal.

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?"

At this point your example, which didn't fit evolution in the first place, degrades into utter nonsense.

(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!".)

If evolution even remotely resembled the strawman you've set up, I'd hate to be an evolutionist right about now.
Fortunately your train of thought exploded at the station without even having time to derail.

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.

And the only logical alternative is that we were cabbled together from dust by the mythological father figure of a tribe of Iron-Age desert nomads. Check.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

 

[Magnus Vile]

I have to admit, I have no idea what this is about.

 

[Dark_Lite]

I have to admit, I have no idea what this is about.

No?

 

[Magnus Vile]

No. I really mean it. I can't see how the opening of the OP relates to the rest of the post, and I can't see how the central argument relates to the subject it's discussing.

Though Nathan seems to have made some sense of it.

 

[Obertray]

...I know what this thread is about!

...Oh no, I know what this thread is about!

...*weeps for humanity*

 

[Sanguine]

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'".

You go awry in implying that evolution has a goal. Mutations are the evolution, they have absolutely no direction. Selective advantage is what keeps the mutations extant, not what creates them.

Evolutionist: "so '5' was needed because it fits exactly two times into '10'!".

Once again, you assume there is a goal. This is not the case.

 

[Colossians]

I pointed out in the OP that evolutionists have trouble grasping abstract concepts.

Such has been evidenced so far by:
One honest answer (Magnus).
One dishonest piece of false indignation (Nathan Poe) who thinks he can call my bluff.

 

[L'Anatra]

The evolutionist, we have pointed out on other threads, builds his platform on a logical redundancy.

We, eh? Hilarious.

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".

There is nothing circular about such a statement. As such, post hoc ergo propter hoc is not its parody, and your translation of the phrase into English is blatantly incorrect.

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

Indeed. The irony here is now growing exponentially.

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'.

Somehow I don't think this is a useful framework. Neither is it an accurate one. But you still have no idea what a strawman is. Look it up. Now.

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!".)

It's highly interesting that you bring up "thought-blocking ability," because you seem to have your fingers in your ears. Reality is not based on logical reasoning. Your inability to rationalize and your propensity for illogic have nothing to do with the manner in which nature operates. Your arguments are flawed and ultimately have no place here. Your vocabulary, while clever, is woefully lacking in substance. And your self-importance is highly unbecoming.

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.

"10" will never exist. The evolution of life does not have a predetermined or ultimate goal, nor does the process ever cease. Accordingly, your argument is a strawman.

I find it to be quite amusing that someone with such poor logic and such limited knowledge is trying to play mind games with others.

 

[Obertray]

I really don't see how so many creationists overlook that part. I mean, evolutionists are almost always saying that there is no ultimate goal for evolution. Do you want me to repeat it in your terms, Colossians?

THERE IS NO 10.

 

[Colossians]

You go awry in implying that evolution has a goal.
It is you who are always telling us about its goal. (I think you use the word "advantage". Sound familiar?)

So now you need to tell us why '5' is desireable because it divides into '10' exactly twice, when perhaps '7' is desirebale because it divides into '21' three times.

 

[Magnus Vile]

I pointed out in the OP that evolutionists have trouble grasping abstract concepts.

Such has been evidenced so far by:
One honest answer (Magnus).
One dishonest piece of false indignation (Nathan Poe) who thinks he can call my bluff.

You know, for a moment I wondered if I was being insulted, but only for a moment.

Trouble grasping abstract concepts? Not really, I have trouble grasping gibberish.

 

[L'Anatra]

You go awry in implying that evolution has a goal.
It is you who are always telling us about its goal. (I think you use the word "advantage". Sound familiar?)

An organism that carries an "advantage" to living in its environment has not and will never reach any "goal." There are no "goals" in evolution.

So now you need to tell us why '5' is desireable because it divides into '10' exactly twice, when perhaps '7' is desirebale because it divides into '21' three times.

Why a specific feature of an organism is desireable now may have nothing to do with why it was desireable in the ancient past. Your numerical chronology is an inadequate over-simplification of the process of evolution over time.

 

[Colossians]

THERE IS NO 10.
Then you won't be upset if we don't believe you. Everything is random anyway.

But rather, there is a 10: your unwitting absoute in your declaration of the 'upward' movement from less complex to more complex. Your '10' is manfested in your intuition of direction, and of what you think makes sense in that direction.

Basically, you are a group of people who do not look past your nose; or put another way, who look into a mirror and then after walking away, forget what you look like.
You have a tacit absolute in your doctrine, which needs to be high-lighted and exposed. That is what this thread is designed to do.

 

[Logic]

So now you need to tell us why '5' is desireable because it divides into '10' exactly twice, when perhaps '7' is desirebale because it divides into '21' three times.

I snorted out Dr. Pepper all over my keyboard and mouse pad, thanks a lot!

 

[ReUsAbLePhEoNiX]

colossians , dont listen to these god hating evolutionists, you speak more wisdom then all of them put together. they know you have beat them hands down, they are to Proudful in their sin to admit it. You know as well as I that you make perfect sense. Keep fighting the Good Fight. If evolutionists dont understand, its because Satan himself has blinded them to the truth.

 

[L'Anatra]

THERE IS NO 10.
Then you won't be upset if we don't believe you. Everything is random anyway.

No. Everything is not "random." Natural selection is the very opposite of "random."

But rather, there is a 10: your unwitting absoute in your declaration of the 'upward' movement from less complex to more complex. Your '10' is manfested in your intuition of direction, and of what you think makes sense in that direction.

Evolution has no "upward" movement. There is no direction. It is a natural process.

Basically, you are a group of people who do not look past your nose; or put another way, who look into a mirror and then after walking away, forget what you look like.

You have a tacit absolute in your doctrine, which needs to be high-lighted and exposed. That is what this thread is designed to do.

Your understanding of the Theory of Evolution is virtually non-existant. And yet you pretend that you can argue it into oblivion with "logic." You have a lot to learn.

 

[Sanguine]

It is you who are always telling us about its goal. (I think you use the word "advantage". Sound familiar?)

Whether or not a mutation is an advantage is mere happenstance, it is determined by the environment (both animate and inanimate aspects), which is entirely transitory anyway. What is advantageous for an organism in one environment may not be for another organism in a different environment. It is in no way contrived.