10

[Jet Black]

And you'll strike "primitive" from your terminology. After all, it's just a natural process. It could all reverse tommorrow right?

are you suggesting that those that breed less could be more succeesful than those that breed more? or that things might reduce in complexity? If it is the latter, we already know that things often reduce in complexity, but are more successful than their more complex brethren. an exmple in point is that of parasites, in which the organism becomes better an better at being parasitic (often heading towards symbiosis) but less well adapted to surviving on it's own. you should try to make clear what exactly is going in reverse though, your statements are often rather vague (perhaps intentionally so)

 

[Colossians]

No. Primitive is a relative term and has no meaning in the context of evolution. We came from life forms different to us. Just as any other contemporary organism did.
(Lantra is playing cagey. But let's see whether he invites those in cages to dinner, After all, they are no more primitive than he: just different.)

 

[Mistermystery]

Reusable pheonix has made the best post. The other posts makes me wish I hadn't gone 2 this thread because it's 1 that's pretty illogical 4 any1.

 

[Colossians]

Until later Amigos.

 

[Jet Black]

Reusable pheonix has made the best post. The other posts makes me wish I hadn't gone 2 this thread because it's 1 that's pretty illogical 4 any1.

but how do you get to 10!!!!!!

 

[L'Anatra]

No. Primitive is a relative term and has no meaning in the context of evolution. We came from life forms different to us. Just as any other contemporary organism did.
(Lantra is playing cagey. But let's see whether he invites those in cages to dinner, After all, they are no more primitive than he: just different.)

Primitive in terms of what? Intelligence? You're absolutely right.

Consider the fact that I'd be hard pressed to invite you to dinner. Can you follow that line of reasoning?

 

[Sopharos]

"10" is not an aim, it's a result.
At least one of your camp has agreed there is a '10'.

9 out of 10! Sophora!
Now all you have to do is realise that if you think the "result" is good, then it is in fact your '10', and you get the extra mark.

Define "good."

 

[L'Anatra]

but how do you get to 10!!!!!!

Maybe through 6, 7, 8, and 9.

But Colossians didn't define those!

 

[Ryal Kane]

Everyone knows that Macro addition cannot possibly exist. No one has ever demonstrated 1 +1 + 1... up to billions. Micro addition has been documented but numbers cannot add beyond their kind.
And where are the transitional numbers?
Fractions aren't transitional because 3.456456 is still a 3.
..um... need another agruement... um... I Know You Are But What Am I!

Hah. That'll sort out those Evilutionists.

Ryal Kane

 

[Jet Black]

Maybe through 6, 7, 8, and 9.

But Colossians didn't define those!

he didn't even define the others properly. it waqs vague enough for him to turn into a strawman at any opportunity.

 

[Praxiteles]

Good lord!

Colossians, whatever concept it is that you are expending so much effort in arguing against, it is not the Theory of Evolution. Definitely not.

If you want to shoot the target, you have to point the gun at it - not somewhere up and off to the left.

 

[L'Anatra]

he didn't even define the others properly. it waqs vague enough for him to turn into a strawman at any opportunity.

The numbers don't exist anywhere but in his mind. Yet somehow he thinks reality conforms to them. Most of us know that it doesn't. But it would appear that he's been either unable or unwilling to receive that memo.

I'm going for the latter.

 

[Colossians]

<culled via Natural Selection>

(This one just didn't have what it takes: but look what evolved in its place right below!)

 

[Colossians]

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

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

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.

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.
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.

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.
Or as we have called it: '10'.

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

 

[Jet Black]

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.

false. please do not misrepresent me, this is a violation of rule #1

 

[Colossians]

evolution may lead (almost ironically) to extinction.
Jet Black has told us that evolution might eventually result in its demise
false. please do not misrepresent me
Eh.. right...


this is a violation of rule #1
Appealing to your innate sense of '10' again?

 

[Data]

evolution may lead (almost ironically) to extinction.
Jet Black has told us that evolution might eventually result in its demise
false. please do not misrepresent me
Eh.. right...

Irony meter! EXPLODING! AAAARGGGGGHHH

 

[ObbiQuiet]

evolution may lead (almost ironically) to extinction.
Jet Black has told us that evolution might eventually result in its demise
false. please do not misrepresent me
Eh.. right...


this is a violation of rule #1
Appealing to your innate sense of '10' again?

You don't understand your argument was cleverly displayed rubbish.

I am stunned.

 

[Jet Black]

evolution may lead (almost ironically) to extinction.
Jet Black has told us that evolution might eventually result in its demise
false. please do not misrepresent me
Eh.. right...

see, you're misrepresenting me. you claimed that I said evolution would lead to its demise, I did not at all.

 

[Nathan David]

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.

Those are not and never were commonly accepted concepts of biological evolution.