Is evolution stupid?

[JohnR7]

Evos like to avoid the use of words like creation and design. I can see why, because if you have a creation, then you must have a creator, and if you have a design, then you may think that there is a designer.

What surprises me though is that evos are adament in that there is nothing intelligent about evolution. Even though we are intelligent, they seem to feel that something that was not intelligent created us.

So, I went to look up the Antonyms for intelligent and the primary word that came up was stupid. So by definition if evolution is not a intelligent process, then it must be a stupid one.

So how do evos explain this? Is evolution stupid or intelligent?

 

[Asimov]

Evos like to avoid the use of words like creation and design. I can see why, because if you have a creation, then you must have a creator, and if you have a design, then you may think that there is a designer.

Well, I'm pretty sure by designer, you mean intelligent designer. But no, we don't deny design, we deny intelligent design.

What surprises me though is that evos are adament in that there is nothing intelligent about evolution. Even though we are intelligent, they seem to feel that something that was not intelligent created us.

So, I went to look up the Antonyms for intelligent and the primary word that came up was stupid. So by definition if evolution is not a intelligent process, then it must be a stupid one.

So how do evos explain this? Is evolution stupid or intelligent?

what? John...you're creating a false dichotomy.

 

[Lithium Hobo]

Evos like to avoid the use of words like creation and design. I can see why, because if you have a creation, then you must have a creator, and if you have a design, then you may think that there is a designer.

What surprises me though is that evos are adament in that there is nothing intelligent about evolution. Even though we are intelligent, they seem to feel that something that was not intelligent created us.

So, I went to look up the Antonyms for intelligent and the primary word that came up was stupid. So by definition if evolution is not a intelligent process, then it must be a stupid one.

So how do evos explain this? Is evolution stupid or intelligent?

I could make the same arguement against Christianity and I'm betting it'd stick alot better than the messed up formula you've tried to manifest.

Evolution is not an intellegent design cause evolution does not think, it's just a process. A rock does not think, but that doesn't make it stupid. It's an inanimate object, incapable of thought.

 

[raphael_aa]

what? John...you're creating a false dichotomy.

I think John likes his world black and white. In this thread for example, he's using word games to denigrate a scientific theory. Kind of on the same level as 'haha, I'm rubber and you're glue'. He seems to feel any tactic is ok because he's on the side of light and the angels and anyone who thinks differently is in league with the prince of darkness.

 

[Ryal Kane]

A bike is not intellegent. Therefore a bike is stupid.
An apple is not intellegent. Therefore an apple is stupid.

Your designer needs design arguement is a PRATT.
Your intellegence can only come from intellegence is a PRATT.

You recent threads have been arrogant, snide and illogical.
You have been capable of polite discussion in the past. Sadly this seems less evident in your behaviour of late.

 

[P4g4nite]

Onlooker: Wow John, that last thread on mice was pretty bad, I bet you can't do worse than that.
John: I'll see that bet and raise you one false dichotomy!

And thus the "Is evolution stupid" thread was born.

 

[corvus_corax]

Evos like to avoid the use of words like creation and design. I can see why, because if you have a creation, then you must have a creator, and if you have a design, then you may think that there is a designer.
What surprises me though is that evos are adament in that there is nothing intelligent about evolution. Even though we are intelligent, they seem to feel that something that was not intelligent created us.
So, I went to look up the Antonyms for intelligent and the primary word that came up was stupid. So by definition if evolution is not a intelligent process, then it must be a stupid one.

So how do evos explain this? Is evolution stupid or intelligent?

Well gee, at least now you're looking up the words you use, as opposed to PREVIOUS attempts. (not that anybody actually expects you to defend yourself on that violation of the english language)

Now, however, I would ask that you use the words correctly.

But Im sure that's too much to ask.

Let's give an example here....
The Bible as a book is not intelligent. It cant think. Therefore according to JohnR7, the Bible is stupid.

Everybody take note, according to JohnR7's twisting of words, the Bible is stupid.

WTG JohnR7! Applying for an EAC card this week are you?

 

[mikeynov]

Food for thought:

 

[grmorton]

Evos like to avoid the use of words like creation and design. I can see why, because if you have a creation, then you must have a creator, and if you have a design, then you may think that there is a designer.

False, I know evolution is a fact, but I also believe in the creator. God created a universe which would evolve us. Your logic is flawed. Strike 1

What surprises me though is that evos are adament in that there is nothing intelligent about evolution. Even though we are intelligent, they seem to feel that something that was not intelligent created us.

I don't. So strike 2.

So, I went to look up the Antonyms for intelligent and the primary word that came up was stupid. So by definition if evolution is not a intelligent process, then it must be a stupid one.

So how do evos explain this? Is evolution stupid or intelligent?

this is a logical fallacy of equivocation. Strike 3 your out.

 

[Anovah]

Is neither an option?

 

[corvus_corax]

False, I know evolution is a fact, but I also believe in the creator. God created a universe which would evolve us. Your logic is flawed. Strike 1
I don't. So strike 2.
this is a logical fallacy of equivocation. Strike 3 your out.

You know, one would think that when a Christian,who has demonstrated actual evidences time and again, (let's call him Christian-A) calls out another christian (Christian-B) and essentially says "Every argument you use strikes out, you're wrong, end of story"....
One would think that Christian-B would sit up and take notice.

Sadly, I dont think that will happen here.

I (obviously) have my issues with Christianity. However, Im pleased to see that some Christians (like grmorton) are not only faithful to their religion but also intellectually honest.
Other christians, however, well...not so much.

Lies, PRATTs, misinterpretation and purposeful ravaging of common words do not an honest christian make.

Which, of course, is most un-Christlike.

 

[raphael_aa]

You know, one would think that when a Christian,who has demonstrated actual evidences time and again, (let's call him Christian-A) calls out another christian (Christian-B) and essentially says "Every argument you use strikes out, you're wrong, end of story"....
One would think that Christian-B would sit up and take notice.

Sadly, I dont think that will happen here.

I (obviously) have my issues with Christianity. However, Im pleased to see that some Christians (like grmorton) are not only faithful to their religion but also intellectually honest.
Other christians, however, well...not so much.

Lies, PRATTs, misinterpretation and purposeful ravaging of common words do not an honest christian make.

Which, of course, is most un-Christlike.

Ahh, you forget the time honoured way in which we christians have always dealt with criticism by our own. There are REAL christians and fake ones. The REAL christians all agree with me.

 

[corvus_corax]

Ahh, you forget the time honoured way in which we christians have always dealt with criticism by our own. There are REAL christians and fake ones. The REAL christians all agree with me.

Right-o!
And of course, let's not forget, REAL christians dont INTERPRET scripture, they read it as it is.
Which applies to Universalists, Calvanists, literalists, Catholics and Protestants (un?)equally.

 

[tocis]

So, I went to look up the Antonyms for intelligent and the primary word that came up was stupid. So by definition if evolution is not a intelligent process, then it must be a stupid one.

If the processes involved would have any capability for thought (like, for example, entities with brains or similar organs are involved), then you might have a very tiny little point. But as has already been explained to you, by your definition even the glass of water on my table is stupid because it can't think.
And even among entities capable of mental processing, there's much room between "intelligent" (by the way, intelligent compared to... what?) and "stupid".

Now please tell us honestly - did you really think about what you wanted to post before you posted it?

 

[JohnR7]

Evolution is not an intellegent design cause evolution does not think, it's just a process. A rock does not think, but that doesn't make it stupid. It's an inanimate object, incapable of thought.

We are not talking about the appearance of the rock. We are talking about the design of the rock, that would involve geology or physics. Or the elements that make up the rock and that would involve chemistry. Of course there are different rocks, like gold or diamonds or other precious stones. They take on a different appearance depending on their structure.

 

[JohnR7]

A bike is not intellegent.

We are talking about the design of the bike. Everyone is making the same mistake here. I have had some bikes that had a pretty stupid design to them.

 

[JohnR7]

There are REAL christians and fake ones.

The "fake" christians we have names for like: dead, harlot, apostate, carnal, of the world and so forth.

 

[JohnR7]

Is neither an option?

You always have the option of coming up with another adj. But in this case we are starting off with the premise that evolution is NOT intelligent. At least evos are trying to make the claim that it is NOT intelligent. For me the logical conclusion is if something is NOT intelligent, then it must be stupid.

 

[corvus_corax]

We are talking about the design of the bike. Everyone is making the same mistake here. I have had some bikes that had a pretty stupid design to them.

Ooooo, you're talking about the design of evolution as stupid?
Stupid as in "lacking inteligence"?
Gotcha!

Well, one could easily say the design of the Bible is stupid (lacking intelligence)
After all, if it were purposefully intelligently designed by an all-knowing God, EVERONE would get it.
Such is not the case however.
Calvanism, Universalism, Catholicism, Protestantism, literal hell, metaphorical hell, salvation through Jesus alone, salvation through Jesus and water baptism, etc etc etc
And no, these arent minor issues.

And dont pretend that you read the scriptures as they are without interpretation. Every denomination says the same thing.
Saying such is pure hubris.


I mean, really, couldnt an Intelligent Designer created a more intelligent book?

 

[JohnR7]

"Every argument you use strikes out, you're wrong, end of story"....

You can say whatever you want to say, but just because you say it, does not make it true. Only God is true.

Romans 3:4
God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Psalm 116:11
I said in my haste, All men are liars.