"He was never in the equation"
Is the first thing they say
When they don't want it to add up
Is the first thing they say
When they don't want it to add up
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I have laid out in plain English that Evolution does not exist for its own sake.
So what is the motive for keeping it: morally???
It actually pretty much does.
If other people understand you better, this still doesn't make your posts well reasoned or coherent. Note that the people who respond to you, always say you are wrong.Case in point, re: above EDIT.
As for your insolence...
...consider that no matter how many groups of individuals say "you don't make sense", there is almost always one or two that reply meaningfully, having fully understood what I said - given that one or two almost always demonstrate that they have fully understood, and time ends, who will be said to be at least "intelligent"? You or them? And time having ended and great numbers of people standing around saying "but we didn't understand" and they did not ask those who understood, who will be considered foolish? You or them?
Given that you keep claiming the same things, despite the fact that many people have already pointed out to you at length that you are wrong, I'd say this applies pretty well to you.A man asks many questions, but when he does not seek an answer: he alone is the fool.
It doesn't have to. It's a process. It doesn't need knowledge.I just looked at my first post and I realized what I really needed to be saying:
Evolution (on its own) is not a sufficient condition, for sustaining the knowledge of itself.
Evolution doesn't kill, devour, intergrate and pursue. Organisms do.I can prove it: name one thing the concept of "Evolution" has predatorily killed, devoured, integrated and pursued again. Yet what? It espouses "survival of the fittest" with predatorial conflict (at least frequently) presumed to be the "highest good".
Than what was the above about?News flash: concepts don't kill people, people do.
Right? And?
Conversely: concepts don't keep themselves, people keep them.
Ok? So?
Motive please! I have laid out in plain English that Evolution does not exist for its own sake. So what is the motive for keeping it: morally???
Waiting.
Your problem is twofold: one, you think intelligence is instant, two, you think proving it needs to be public.
I am just making an observation, not an assessment of character (I could have said you are stupid because of these things)
It doesn't have to. It's a process. It doesn't need knowledge.
Evolution doesn't kill, devour, intergrate and pursue. Organisms do.
Than what was the above about?
Reality doesn't care whether we keep an accurate description of it or not. It will happen regardless.
Question: Do you seriously think that evolution will stop happening if we, as humans, abandon it as a description of reality?
Really, I just had one evolutionist call another evolutionist crazy because he said that evolution was an idea.We should just let evolutionists fight it out with each other and watch them self destruct. Because they can not seem to agree on much of anything. They sure like to put up a fake front like they agree on the basics, but not really. But like other fake fronts it looks good.Woah! I could dump you in the ocean of Evolutionist disapproval for that comment alone:
Our knowledge of description is knowledge. The process as it happens in nature is not. Whether we have knowledge of this process is irrelevant to it happening. Do you understand this?Woah! I could dump you in the ocean of Evolutionist disapproval for that comment alone: you need to find a way to take it back, seriously, aint nobody going to say "evolution is not knowledge" (and agree with you). Seriously, delete it or something, before someone sees (I will delete this if you need me to).
Name one. Seriously.Again, there are Evolutionists that would argue that it can,
What do you think this even means? Reality will happen, regardless of whether we get the description of it right. Do you understand this?but since I was saying exactly this (EXACTLY) in order to make a point, I would rather you focus on the point: the point is BECAUSE IT DOESN'T IT WILL DIE UNLESS KEPT.
Què?Not that you understand this, but basically your Evolutionary logic has turned inward on itself and begun to devour your own reasoning. You do not have long, I suggest you stop.
People care. Reality does not. If I fall out of an airplane, I care whether gravity exists or not and I'd rather it doesn't. Gravity will exist nonetheless. If I'm out in the desert without water, I will care about the fact that I don't have bumps storing water, like camels. Nature does not care one bit. Do you understand this?Reality does care. People in reality choose to care. Because People in reality choose to care, certain concepts survive and others die. You are in denial (of environmental pressure your own theory says is relevant) if you do not accept this.
??? No, evolution will happen, whether we get the description of it right or not. Again, do you really think any natural process will stop happening if we get the description of it wrong?Presumption: evolution is already happening, therefore it doesn't need to be happening ("it just is"). Pure Nonsense.
I will stop you getting out of the plane if I have to.
Stop asking me if I understand and ASK if you do.
Your theory is dying NOW, NO ONE believes IT and you think because I cannot change it, that somehow it is still TRUE
You are a laughing stock, we have been laughing since WWII and you have never attempted to fix the problem
Now someone who very clearly knows what the problem is IS POINTING IT OUT and you are trying to tell them that "description = innocence"
BAHAHAHAHA
If I quote you straight back, without limiting what you said to one statement as if that was all that was said... does it sound like you make sense? Or like you have responded with a fragment?
No offence, but if you want to derail serious discussion with flippant remarks, why not find a bambi site?
If you want to impose your beliefs onto science then remember this: All deities are the inventions of human imagination and belong to the spiritual world. Deities have no place in science. Evolution is nothing more than a process. The process in itself is neither sentient nor moral.Objection so far hasn't even slightly addressed that Evolutionists will gladly create fantasy argument for how the concept of "morality" evolved... if it suits them to "prop up" their theory.
Very bogus representation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?