Could cars reproduce?

[DogmaHunter]

Not only that, it's simply ridiculous and goes against every law of logical reasoning I'm aware of, yet people actually believe it, and call those who don't, the crackpot.

Goes to show just how strong the desire to not believe what is easily the simplest, and most likely explanation actually is, and forget about faith for the moment, that's speaking from nothing more than a logical standpoint.

Attributing things to undetectable, unsupportable entities - is never logical.

 

[DogmaHunter]

the same with this car.

cars have babies?

it will change over time and will be different from the starting car.

No. It's the same car, just rusty and old.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Bungle_Bear wanted me to point to someone who believed it,so here ya' go.

What that person said about evolution, is not the same as what you said about it.
Part 2 in particular, was ommitted from what you had to say about it.

It's actually frequently ommitted from what creationists claim evolution is.

Sorry Rivga, I didn't really read your post any more than I did the OP

Maybe you should. It would help discovering where you get it wrong.

 

[xianghua]

Not biologically it can't,

but it can non-biologically. right?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think your getting a bit over exited here, and things may be going a little haywire. Why didn't you quote me the normal way so I could see if indeed that was me that said what you claim?

Well, how nice of you to invite us to do that. Allow me.....


Here's a post of yours in this thread. I also included the post that you quoted, so that it is clear what you were responding to:

Darwinists say that 'the billions of designs happened by chance without design'. But that is a contradiction in terms.

​

Not only that, it's simply ridiculous and goes against every law of logical reasoning I'm aware of, yet people actually believe it, and call those who don't, the crackpot.

Goes to show just how strong the desire to not believe what is easily the simplest, and most likely explanation actually is, and forget about faith for the moment, that's speaking from nothing more than a logical standpoint.​

Bolding is mine for emphasis... Clearly, you agree with the quote you were replying to and side with it. You agree and elaborate on it.

Consider the part in green.... It says that it happened by chance.
It doesn't. Evolution isn't random. It has random ingredients, but as a process it most definatly is not random.​

​

See? And it's hardly the first time that you guys misrepresent what evolution theory is really all about.... That's why Speedwell gets to say that you are making up crap and then insist that we must believe it.​

​

Because he is 100% demonstrably correct and justifed in making that accusation.​

​

I'll actually pile on some more.​

​

I'll go ahead and also accuse you of deliberate dishonesty. Because you know very very well that you engage in this despicable behaviour. You fully realise that you are arguing a strawman. You fully realise that you are lying.​

​

I know this for a fact, because I personally have lost count how many times I myself pointed such out to you personally. And I'm hardly alone in that...​

​

Just go down a couple posts, to post #27, where @Rivga is explaining to you your exact error (strawman), by pointing out the crucial role of natural selection and how that removes the sheer randomness.​

​

And what is your response to that? Well..... nothing at all. You just continue posting as if it was never said. WORSE then that even, you even quote the post where your strawman was pointed out, and you respond to it by just repeating the same nonsense and then saying that you didn't even read the quote properly.​

​

You are shooting yourself in the foot at every possible turn. You exhibit your total lack of intellectual honesty and integrity with every post. You expose your ignorance on the subject with every statement.​

​

It's absolutely ridiculous and if this is your way of "drawing people to Christ", then I can honestly tell you that the actual effect of your behaviour will rather be the exact opposite.​

Because who would want to associate with a bunch of liars?

​

Now quote what "I made up" the proper way so can verify it

I just did. Now you can go ahead and make up excuse after excuse, maybe derail a bit and then in a couple of pages, when this exposure is "lost in the pages of the thread", you can continue repeating the same nonsense that I just pointed out here, like you always do.

If you are correct, I'll deal with it

I seriously doubt it. But hey.... prove me wrong!

Evolutionists: Stop making up false crap about creationists making up false crap about evolution..

Unlike you... we don't actually have an incentive for lying.

 

[DogmaHunter]

LOL! I don't know how to quote from one thread to another. I'll bump it on the "Study" thread so you can see it.

Go to that thread, hit the "reply" button so that the post is quoted in the respond box and then just copy/paste it to the respond box of a thread in which you want to post it.

EDIT: seems like I'm late to the party....

 

[DogmaHunter]

again: i dont speak about evolutionery process but about the logic behind it.

the logic behind it requires:
- reproduction with modification resulting in a new generation
- a population of a healthy amount of individuals
- competition between individuals over limited resources
- the passing on of traits from generation x to generation x+1

None of which are present in your ridiculous PRATT of cars, robots and what-not.

so do you agree that small changes can become into a big change over time? yes or no?

The accumulation of small changes inevitably leads to big changes when contrasted against the starting state.

This is common sense.


1+1+1+1+1+1+.....+1+1+1 = big number.

 

[DogmaHunter]

indeed english isnt my native so be aware that i will may not understand some words here and there in general.

English not being your first language really is no excuse for being so willfully ignorant about basic biological processes. Especially not after a bunch of us have been pointing out your mistakes for months now.

now, if we both agree that a car can add small changes over time why it cant change into a truck for instance?

Because this isn't Disney.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you didn't understand the post.

We understand it just fine.

We just don't tolerate blatant intellectual dishonesty.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but it can non-biologically. right?

The subject under discussion is biological evolution.

Are we finally getting it?
(i'll go ahead and assume that to be too optimistic)

 

[xianghua]

If by "evolve" you mean "gather dust", then sure.

so why we will not get an airplane after many small changes?

 

[Speedwell]

so why we will not get an airplane after many small changes?

Are you talking about a single individual car and turning it into an airplane with many small changes?

Why does that have anything to do with evolution?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so why we will not get an airplane after many small changes?

I'm not sure on which planet you live, but over here on earth, a car gathering dust doesn't turn it into an airplane.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, how nice of you to invite us to do that. Allow me.....


Here's a post of yours in this thread. I also included the post that you quoted, so that it is clear what you were responding to:

Bolding is mine for emphasis... Clearly, you agree with the quote you were replying to and side with it. You agree and elaborate on it.

Consider the part in green.... It says that it happened by chance.
It doesn't. Evolution isn't random. It has random ingredients, but as a process it most definatly is not random.​

See? And it's hardly the first time that you guys misrepresent what evolution theory is really all about.... That's why Speedwell gets to say that you are making up crap and then insist that we must believe it.

Because he is 100% demonstrably correct and justifed in making that accusation.

I'll actually pile on some more.

I'll go ahead and also accuse you of deliberate dishonesty. Because you know very very well that you engage in this despicable behaviour. You fully realise that you are arguing a strawman. You fully realise that you are lying.

I know this for a fact, because I personally have lost count how many times I myself pointed such out to you personally. And I'm hardly alone in that...

Just go down a couple posts, to post #27, where @Rivga is explaining to you your exact error (strawman), by pointing out the crucial role of natural selection and how that removes the sheer randomness.

And what is your response to that? Well..... nothing at all. You just continue posting as if it was never said. WORSE then that even, you even quote the post where your strawman was pointed out, and you respond to it by just repeating the same nonsense and then saying that you didn't even read the quote properly.

You are shooting yourself in the foot at every possible turn. You exhibit your total lack of intellectual honesty and integrity with every post. You expose your ignorance on the subject with every statement.

It's absolutely ridiculous and if this is your way of "drawing people to Christ", then I can honestly tell you that the actual effect of your behaviour will rather be the exact opposite.​

Because who would want to associate with a bunch of liars?

​

I just did. Now you can go ahead and make up excuse after excuse, maybe derail a bit and then in a couple of pages, when this exposure is "lost in the pages of the thread", you can continue repeating the same nonsense that I just pointed out here, like you always do.



I seriously doubt it. But hey.... prove me wrong!



Unlike you... we don't actually have an incentive for lying.

A more charitable interpretation would be that since creationists believe that the theory of evolution is a lie to begin with, being accurate about its content is not essential.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A more charitable interpretation would be that since creationists believe that the theory of evolution is a lie to begin with, being accurate about its content is not essential.

Myeah.... I was on a roll.

At times it really becomes tiring that it's always the same people with the same nonsense who had it pointed out to them on countless occasions already, and yet still continue with the same nonsense.

There comes a point where you just got to call it what it is. Deliberate dishonesty.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yeah, I don't speak creationist. Words seem to have different meanings for you guys.

Funny, coming from an evolutionists who's group admittedly change definitions when it convenient to their cause.

I still have no idea how the comment we speak of was relevant.

 

[Speedwell]

Myeah.... I was on a roll.

At times it really becomes tiring that it's always the same people with the same nonsense who had it pointed out to them on countless occasions already, and yet still continue with the same nonsense.

There comes a point where you just got to call it what it is. Deliberate dishonesty.

No, you are right. It never ceases to amaze me that we spend most of our time here trying to set creationists right about what the theory of evolution actually says, rather than defending it against substantive arguments.

 

[Speedwell]

Funny, coming from an evolutionists who's group admittedly change definitions when it convenient to their cause.

.

Let us have an eample of that, if you will.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Attributing things to undetectable, unsupportable entities - is never logical.

Yet when it works for you, the simplest explanation being the most likely, IS a logical conclusion.

How logical is the unsupported nothing that started your evolution? First there was, well, duh, uh, something, then y'all run with it, with some of the most ludicrous explanations possible and then claim, someone made it is illogical? Maybe it's the term "logical" you are having trouble with.

.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Let us have an eample of that, if you will.

As much as you've been around, have you never seen that come up here before in any way shape of form?