10

[Split Rock]

Split Rock,

I have lost count of the amount of times I have been quoted as though what follows the quote is somehow rebutting it.
To reassert your erroneous denial, is not to defend it.
Go back and address the post you quoted, and tell me what part you don't understand.

Everyone is trying to tell you there is NO GOAL to evolution, or NO "10" as you (again, I ask who "we" is) define it. Therefore, it is impossible to explain to you what mechanism defines what "10" is!

For example, scientifically, we cannot say that Man was the goal of evolution among the primates. Some theistic evolutionists may believe this, but that is beyond science or the mechanisms of evolution.

To reassert your erroneous question is not to defend it.

 

[L'Anatra]

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?
No. But have you considerd the possibility that maybe they are running scared, and are using the old tactic of denegrating their opposition's understanding in order to save face?
And have you also considered that I have witnessed your viewing of my threads for long enough now to know that you know that I know?
Further, is not correct understanding of this thread part of your '10'? That being actually the case, have you considered that it is you that do not understand my thread?

Being that this thread (and all others you have created) is arguing against a strawman version of the Theory of Evolution, it has not been successful.

You truly do not understand the theory, its purpose, or its usefulness. This isn't a denegration, it is a fact. It is you who needs to save face.

 

[L'Anatra]

Those are not and never were commonly accepted concepts of biological evolution.
And Elvis never wore white jump suits.

Yes he did.

And "less complex", "more complex", "primitive", and "ultimate goal" have never had anything to do with evolution. Wherever the hell you get your misinformation from, you're going to need to stop spouting it in this forum.

I would suggest that--if you're going to continue to lie blatantly--you at least read about the actual Theory of Evolution. I'm sick of hearing about the false one you have concocted in your mind.

 

[lucaspa]

Let me explain it to you better:
Evolution's steps/points (the things it produces) can be represented as numbers, for both have utility.

Evolution claims that its 'numbers' not only have utility, but that that utility is self-substantive.
For example, a man's arm is rightfully and properly an arm, fulfilling a required 'place' in the scheme of things: an absolute, self-substantive utility.

Can you quote from any evolutionary textbook that such a claim is made?

Even if the arm did not exist or evolve, the concept would still exist as an absolute.
So their doctrine is built upon an underlying tautology: things are the way they are because they make sense that way.

This is actually a combination of Plato's (or is it Aristotle's?) "perfect forms" and the idea the designs in organisms are there because they are "good" designs. Both are creationist ideas and formed a basis of the theory of Special Creation that Darwin overthrew! You are still working from the old "top down" philosophy that existed before Darwin. Darwin turned that upside down and showed that design was built from the bottom-up, in response to contingent circumstances. There is no "required place in the scheme of things". If the "arm" did not exist, then it wouldn't. The variations that were selected from to make the "arm" are contingent. They might not have appeared, in which case there would be no "arm"!

He has to therefore tell us where this '10' came from.

The creationist has to tell us what is a "good" design before he can claim that organisms are good designs. Good luck!

 

[lucaspa]

Yes he did.

And "less complex", "more complex", "primitive", and "ultimate goal" have never had anything to do with evolution. Wherever the hell you get your misinformation from, you're going to need to stop spouting it in this forum.

I would suggest that--if you're going to continue to be a blatant liar--you at least read about the actual Theory of Evolution. I'm sick of hearing about the false one you have concocted in your mind.

Calm down. Talk about the ideas and not the person. The statements may be falsehoods, but don't make it personal by calling Colossians a "liar".

Now, since Colossians claims these concepts are part of evolution, let's have him quote from a recent evolutionary biology textbook to demonstrate that to us. He should be able to do that.

I will correct one thing: evolutionists talking about natural selection do talk about "primitive" and "derived" characteristics. However, "primitive" there has a very specific meaning: it is the ancestral, less specialized trait.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

What is the Theory of Creationism ?

 

[Logic]

What is the Theory of Creationism ?

The Earth and universe were created 6000-7000 years ago by God, all "kinds" of life including humans were created at roughly the same time and no new "kinds" have emerged, though they have gone extinct due to a global flood which happened 4,400 years ago, which explains where layers of strata, most geological features, and most importantly, fossils came from.

See also: Falsified Hypothesis

 

[Aduro Amnis]

No I don't want the Hypothesis I want the THEORY.

 

[lucaspa]

I can't believe you guys are even trying with to have a discussion with this troll.

Speaking for myself, I'm just trying to post the correct information for the lurkers.

Once again, discuss the ideas, not the person. Colossians' personal imperfections, if any, are not the subject. The subject is the ideas he posted. Are they accurate portrayals of evolution? If not, why not? If you stick to that, you'll be happier.

 

[lucaspa]

No I don't want the Hypothesis I want the THEORY.

Logic gave you the shorthand version of the theory of creationism. That he called it a "hypothesis" is simply semantics. There's no hard and fast line between hypothesis and theory. http://www.christianforums.com/t125211

As Logic said, the theory was falsified by 1831. What we have today is a group of people who, for emotional reasons, won't accept that it is falsified.

 

[warispeace]

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".)

I find myself reminded of Don Quixote, bravely tilting at windmills and calling them giants.

Onward, Rozinante!

 

[L'Anatra]

Calm down. Talk about the ideas and not the person. The statements may be falsehoods, but don't make it personal by calling Colossians a "liar".

Now, since Colossians claims these concepts are part of evolution, let's have him quote from a recent evolutionary biology textbook to demonstrate that to us. He should be able to do that.

I will correct one thing: evolutionists talking about natural selection do talk about "primitive" and "derived" characteristics. However, "primitive" there has a very specific meaning: it is the ancestral, less specialized trait.

You're right, lucaspa. Perhaps I was too free with my words.

The thing is, we all know he's been told the concepts are not a part of evolution. Yet he continues to parrot them. To me, that constitutes "lying." At the same time, the ad hominem attack was likely not required.

"Primitive" in the sense that Colossians is using it never has had anything to do with the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Physics_guy]

Once again, discuss the ideas, not the person. Colossians' personal imperfections, if any, are not the subject. The subject is the ideas he posted. Are they accurate portrayals of evolution? If not, why not? If you stick to that, you'll be happier.

The OP is so hopelessly addled by poor understanding that there is little that can be done to correct it. Furthermore, the post is simple sophistry and attempts to "win" a debate by confusing pseudo intellectual rambling. Colossian can only "win" by so frustrating anyone willing to actually write out a response, as he has in this thread already. He is the very definition of a troll and this thread is nothing more than a sophists (poorly laid) trap.

I say call a spade a spade.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The OP is so hopelessly addled by poor understanding that there is little that can be done to correct it. Furthermore, the post is simple sophistry and attempts to "win" a debate by confusing pseudo intellectual rambling. Colossian can only "win" by so frustrating anyone willing to actually write out a response, as he has in this thread already. He is the very definition of a troll and this thread is nothing more than a sophists (poorly laid) trap.

I say call a spade a spade.

Of course the trap is poorly laid because Col directed his OP towards an forum well-learned in evolutionary theory. Imagine if he had tried to pull a Hovind and tote this nonsense to an unknowing audience?

EDITED TO ADD: I'm going to copyright the phrase "Pulling a Hovind." I want a dollar every time someone says it.

 

[RoboMastodon]

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.

 

[Jet Black]

ergo, concordantly, vis-a-vis,

hey, it's the architect.

 

[Sanguine]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to RoboMastodon again

 

[RoboMastodon]

hey, it's the architect.

 

[Data]

Therefore, evilution is false.

 

[PhantomLlama]

Furthermore, the post is simple sophistry and attempts to "win" a debate by confusing pseudo intellectual rambling.

I propose a law governing the content of posts, the CF Principle.

P = S + T(rl)

where
P = poster's self image (pretension coefficient)
S = Actual substance of argument
and T(rl) = A + O + r

where
A = ad hominem
O = obsucrantism
and r = pseudophilosophy.