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.
]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.
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
pittguy579 said:You are desperate and it's showing, stopping to the level of personal attacks
I am not ignorant of biological systems. You are the one that is ignorant of biological systems and lack logic and debating skills
Actually everyone knows you're wrong. It is clear the arch example is nothing but a bunch of rubbish and is clear to anyone with an IQ of 75, a dolt, that the systems are not equate and that the arch proves nothing.
No, you lied to me, and you don't like that I caught you. here is a news flash. I don't like being lied to. I get rather testy. I would suggest that if you can't be honest in your dealings with me, you avoid replying to my posts.pittguy579 said:You aren't being honest. You are bearing false witness by accusing me of something I haven't done.
I documented your falsehood. Your denial stands as a testimony to the level of your honesty. case closed.Nope, no falsehood and no false witnessing
You are desperate and it's showing, stopping to the level of personal attacks
You have not addressed anything yet in this post. The only thing you've done is nay-saying.pittguy579 said:Nope, already addressed
Which one?In previous post.
]No, you lied to me, and you don't like that I caught you. here is a news flash. I don't like being lied to. I get rather testy. I would suggest that if you can't be honest in your dealings with me, you avoid replying to my posts.
I documented your falsehood. Your denial stands as a testimony to the level of your honesty. case closed.
Edx said:Good job pittyguy,
Instead of addressing the fact that Behe and Dembski both use non-biological examples to prove points abvout ID, you have been reduced to ignoring this point totally and are now just replying to everything saying "no Im not, you are!" like some spoilt little kid.
pittguy579 said:Maybe I will send you hooked on phonics and maybe some glasses
Those points were addressed already
I am not going to repeat myself if you can't read
Simply copy and paste where you have addressed it, Ive been asking you the same question for pages and pages, as have everyone else and each and every time you just ignore it totally and completely.
A mousetrap is not a biological organism, neither is a rock. Why is a mousetrap allowed to be evidence for ID?
pittguy579 said:I have not ignored it. It was already addressed. I am not going to go back through the many pages of this thread. If you want to go look for it, be my guest.
Go find my previous post. My response is there.
Just tell me the post number.I have read all of your posts and cannot see where you have even acknowledged this point.
[/QUOTE]Why will you spend such a long time replying to posts for pages and pages telling people you cant be bothered to repeat yourself and playing silly "no Im not you are!" kids games, but cant write 2 or 3 sentences about why the mousetrap is allowed to be evidence for ID.
pittguy579 said:I am not sure what the post # is. If I knew that, I wouldn't have to spend time searching for it would I?
I am not playing kids games. You are playing kids games by saying I didn't do something that I did
Analogy is not valid for the reasons I have stated before
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Are you really saying life has become less complex over the eons and that complex systems have become less complex?
So man is really at the end of evolution and every creature before was was superior?
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.
The arch is not a v alid analogy
the analogy is valid because it demonstrates a flaw in the original argument, which states that you can't build up an IC system by the successive addition of parts.
this is true, take a look at the arch. it could not have been built by the addition of parts, because it would collapse if it wasn't fully complete.
but the arch wasn't built up by the addition of small parts. it was built by removing parts.
the reason this is a valid analogy is because evolution can also work by removing parts, and this is one way it can arrive at an IC system.
IC only works as an argument against a strawman version of evolution, that can only add parts. this is not the case at all. removal of parts can arrive at IC, and that is not the only way evolution can do the job. evolution can also work by changing or co-opting parts for a different function, and that can also result in IC systems.
Then before you reply next, why don't you give us the following to post numbers, so we can stop playing silly buggers:pittguy579 said:I am not sure what the post # is. If I knew that, I wouldn't have to spend time searching for it would I?
It was in a previous post
I am not playing kids games. You are playing kids games by saying I didn't do something that I did
Psudopod said:Now. Can we carry on with the issue?
To add to that, the first mention that "the natural course of evolution is that creatures become less complex" is Pittguy in post #146.Psudopod said:The first mention of reverse evolution is made by Pittguy579, in post 127
It is in response to post 122 by caravelair
Now. Can we carry on with the issue?
But up to that point nobody had made such a statement, neither has such a statement been made after this post, except for Pittguy further claiming that the point had been made and others asking Pittguy where the heck that statement was made.Pittguy said:I don't know. Ask the person who first said the natural course of evolution is that creatures have become less complex. I thought that was a pretty stupid statement myself I simply wanted examples. It appears to me that the natural course of evolution is creatures have become more complex over time. If I am wrong. show me how I am wrong.
Really, comedy gold. I do hope Pittguy is making these statements on purpose.Edx said:NO IM NOT, YOU ARE!!!
pittguy579 said:I have not ignored it. It was already addressed. I am not going to go back through the many pages of this thread. If you want to go look for it, be my guest.
Go find my previous post. My response is there.
]that is what many of us have done already! and guess what? we have found nothing! no post at all where you addressed these points. that is why we keep asking you to show us where the post is where you have addressed these points. the rest of us can't see it at all. you keep claiming it is there, so if you are right, then it should be easy to show us the post in which you addressed these points. go ahead, we're all waiting! until you do so, we will have to assume that you actually just can't or won't address these points, and you are claiming you have already as a desperate tactic to avoid doing so.
of course, you could easily prove us all wrong by going back in the thread and finding the post where you addressed these points. but i won't be the least bit surprised if that doesn't happen
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?