pittguy579 said:
I did read the thread, what people are asking you to do is tell us who said it, because as far as anyone can tell the only person that did is you. All you have to do is find the post.
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.
pittguy579 said:Reread the thread.
I was simply referring to a post someone else had made
Edx said:I did read the thread, what people are asking you to do is tell us who said it, because as far as anyone can tell the only person that did is you. All you have to do is find the post.
pittguy579 said:It is clear I was responding to someone
I am not going to page back through this thread.
Are you sure you arent James? You are acting excactly like him.
You arent going to find this supposed post because it doesnt exist, because you make a mistake and dont want to admit
You should both get together, Im sure you'd like each other. And according to your profiles you both live in pittsburgh, both do basically the same thing, and are both Catholic.pittguy579 said:Correlation doesn't mean causation. I don't know James. I am not James
Fine then. You are showing everyone what you are like. How about you respond to the other posts now?No because I am not going to waste my time going back though the thread. No mistake was made.
You should both get together, Im sure you'd like each other. And according to your profiles you both live in pittsburgh, both do basically the same thing, and are both Catholic.
You would probably agree with everything each other said. Wheres the fun in that?pittguy579 said:Well maybe we could get together and maybe go out on a date lol.
And again, which post? Come on, it shouldn't be hard to come up with it if almost every participant on this thread has asked you multiple times to show this post. Why do you keep ignoring that request? It doesn't lend you any credibility.pittguy579 said:I am not James, but that is besides the points
Reread the thread.
I was simply referring to a post someone else had made
Then you must be his carbon copy.pittguy579 said:Correlation doesn't mean causation. I don't know James. I am not James
Then why can't you show it. Why can't you show that you are correct and everyone else here is wrong? I can only think up one reason, and that is that you know you're wrong but don't want to admit it, none else. I've gone back, I have no idea what post you would be referring to. It shouldn't take you long to find it, at the most 5 minutes.No because I am not going to waste my time going back though the thread. No mistake was made.
pittguy579 said:Analogy is not valid for the reasons I have stated before
You are comparing apples and oranges.
caravelair said:pittguy579 said:I will even say it again. It is clear that he was referring to biological systems.
yes, he was doing it by using an analogy to something that was not a biological system, mousetraps. how is that any different from what we are doing with the arch example?
You can't take a hunk of rock and try to say it proves the concept is wrong because the evidence you are using is not equivalent to the system you are comparing it with.
neither is a mousetrap equivalent to biological organisms. so how is that any different?
Are you really saying life has become less complex over the eons and that complex systems have become less complex?
Sure evolution could potentially go in reverse in some instances, but to say the primary engine of evolution works by going in reverse is ridiculous.
caravelair said:evolution can also work by changing or co-opting parts for a different function, and that can also result in IC systems.
The arch is not a v alid analogy
why did you ignore that post?
i never said anything like that. evolution can go either way, producing greater or lesser complexity over a given period of time, or staying the same in terms of overall complexity.
which is why i never said that, or anything like that, nor did anyone else on this thread, except you.
why did you ignore that part? why do you ignore everything that contradicts you?
[/QUOTE]it is, for the many reasons people have given on this thread that you have failed to address over and over.
pittguy579 said:It was not ignored. It was addressed already
I am not going to repeat myself
Someone said that the arch is an example of IR because it evolved in reverse? An arch can evolve? That is why it is a ridiculous example
pittguy579 said:And all I have said is the primary engine of evolution has been towards organisms of greater complexity
Which remains a "just because I claim so" postulation with no foundation in reality.pittguy579 said:And all I have said is the primary engine of evolution has been towards organisms of greater complexity
But then, claims about "reverse" evolution are utter nonsense as well.Someone said that the arch is an example of IR because it evolved in reverse? An arch can evolve? That is why it is a ridiculous example
Not in this tread. If that is your claim, then you are bearing false witness.Nope, someone else said it
I think what we are seeing here with Pittguy, I'm guessing to an extent because I have him on ignore but I doubt he has got anywhere near apologising for his mis-statements yet, is the arrogance we often see associated with religious engineers. They see everything in terms of engineering and can only explain natural complexity through the eyes of some sort of super engineer.
They are well educated and so have the usual amount of intellectual arrogance, but they fail to see that their experience of engineering is not directly correlatable to natural examples.
They get called on their ignorance of biological systems, but because they are engineers and therefore clever men some of them will not admit to being capable of making errors. Ring any bells pittguy?
Pittguy seems to be like this. We know he's wrong, the lurkers know he's wrong, he may or may not know he is wrong depending on his own level of self awareness. In fact it is obvious to everyone who reads through the thread that he has dug himself into hole and is now sitting at the bottom of it declaring resolutely that there is no hole.
]Which remains a "just because I claim so" postulation with no foundation in reality.
But then, claims about "reverse" evolution are utter nonsense as well.
Nope, already addressedAh, ANOTHER "just because I say so" postulation.
Really? In what post?[
How sad that you now seek to bear false witness. You begin to not look like worth dealing with, if you can't be honest.pittguy579 said:Nope, already addressed
Another falsehood. Well, enjoy continuing to spit God in the eye through your false witnessing. I, for one, can only observe with sadness and pity your soul.In previous post.
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?