The second question evolutionists can't answer

caravelair · Oct 7, 2004

Ampoliros said:
Induction is used in some math proofs but I think it can be tricky. A small flaw in logic can cause you lots of headache - one of our classes spent a few minutes debunking the professors inductive proof that any size group had all the same age, because it follows the proper inductive pattern:

-Prove true for base case (One person has the same age as himself)
-Assume true for any case n. (cant really argue against that.)
-Show that this implies that it is true for the n+1 case (its hard to do this, but basically he said for any group n+1 you could form some groups of size n which according to the assumption all have the same age, so they all have the same age.)

The logical problem of this occurs between n=1 and n=2, because there's nothing that says a group of two individuals - the induction breaks down there.

So, it works. But you need to be careful

yes, i remember going over the very same example in some of my math classes. but that's a flaw in the use of induction, not a flaw in induction itself. the point is, there is indeed a serious field of human knowledge that uses inductive proofs.

Physics_guy · Oct 7, 2004

I know what the question is: I wrote it.
The question is not about whether intellect automatically invokes sexual dysfunction, but about how intellect can come into being from sexual processes, which are fundamentally and inherently a-intellectual.

Accordingly, the existence of only one instance of unwanted intervention of the intellect into the sexual act, stands as inductive proof for the impossibility of such facet to arise through a mechanism which has sexual desire as its primary propellant.

Wow - another ubelievably dumb argument from Col.

Um, just because the intellect has little to do with sexual activity (this is not true, BTW - and because you consider it true, I highly doubt your sexual prowess) does not mean it doesn't have a WHOLE LOT to do with survival. Survival until your offspring are capable of reproducing is very very important to the evolution of the species.

Therefore, one must consider the NET value of the trait to survival and reproduction and not just focus on one (false) negative of the trait. A perfect example of this is the sickle cell gene which will spread rapidly through a population because the positive effect of being more resistant to malaria is greater than the negative effect of sickle cell anemia in certain environments.

I will sya though that I do appreciate armchair philosophers like yourself and mark kennedy coming in and attempting to confront science with your poor excuses for "logic." You guys are always great at providing a little bit of (unintentional) humor!

Jet Black · Oct 7, 2004

IchbinBerliner said:
Natural selection is supposed to eliminate the undesirable genes from the race (ie diabetes, alzheimers, etc.) but due to modern medicine, we are essentially making ourselves a genetically weaker race.

strangely enough, NS doesn't remove genes like those that cause Alzheimers, since they only come into effect after the main breeding period, so there is no selective pressure on them to go away.

SIXDAYCREATIONIST · Oct 7, 2004

Colossians, good post. Amazing how they have no answers. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Now get ready for some excuses!!!

Ampoliros · Oct 7, 2004

SIXDAYCREATIONIST said:
Colossians, good post. Amazing how they have no answers. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Now get ready for some excuses!!!

...Did you even read the thread? Notice over the last 80 posts or so, many refutations have been posted, and he's either not been present or ignored them offhand for no decent reason.

Ampoliros

Nathan David · Oct 7, 2004

SIXDAYCREATIONIST said:
Amazing how they have no answers.

So now you're arguing that 7=0.

Pretty pathetic when you have to create a second CF account to get anyone to agree with your posts.

h2whoa · Oct 7, 2004

SIXDAYCREATIONIST said:
Colossians, good post. Amazing how they have no answers. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Now get ready for some excuses!!!

I think that that may actually be the single most depressing thing I've ever read. I can't believe you even said it.

h2

Dal M. · Oct 7, 2004

SIXDAYCREATIONIST said:
Colossians, good post. Amazing how they have no answers.

Get your eyeglasses prescription updated. The answer, since you've missed it, is this: the brain is a flexible and adaptive tool, capable of functioning (and messing up) beyond what we'll loosely call its original design specs. This sort of sexual dysfunction didn't evolve any more than suicide evolved; it's the result of a problem in the thinking process.

If you're having trouble getting the crisp in your cucumber and there isn't a physical cause, don't curse Darwin. See a psychologist.

Mistermystery said:
10 bucks say he will proclaim victory by the end of page 9.

That's a safe bet-- the chump proclaimed victory in the topic title.

Jet Black · Oct 7, 2004

SIXDAYCREATIONIST said:
Amazing how they have no answers.

liar

PhantomLlama · Oct 7, 2004

SIXDAYCREATIONIST said:
Colossians, good post. Amazing how they have no answers. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Now get ready for some excuses!!!

Ryal Kane said:
A: What's 1 + 1?
B: 2
A: But what's 1 + 1?
B: Er. 2
A: Sounding a little confused aren't you? You can't answer 1 + 1?
B: I told you, it's 2!
A: No you're getting angry at me because I'm smarter. You don't even know 1 + 1.
C: Yeah! B is so stupid! You rock A!
B: 1 + 1 is 2
A: Since you can't answer I'm going home.
B: Sigh

Alarmingly prophetic, really.

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Oct 7, 2004

SIXDAYCREATIONIST said:
Colossians, good post. Amazing how they have no answers. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Now get ready for some excuses!!!

You lying hound! I answered this question, amongst others.

And I answered your one about chickens and eggs on the Christians Only forum.

You, sir, are dishonest. You lie. You don't care about truth. You are, according to your own literalist standards, a servant of Satan, the father of lies.

It's pathetic, it really is. This folks is creationism in all its glory - a load of disgraceful unchristian dishonesty. Shun it. Have nothing to do with it.

Ryal Kane · Oct 7, 2004

I try to be fair and polite about these things, but I'm going to have to go with Karl on the lying hound thing.

Has anyone ever seen Colossians and SIXDAYCREATIONIST in the same room at the same time? This thread is IDENTICAL to one from a few months ago, with the above two playing the role of smug denyer and cheerleader.
Carico may rant and JohnR7 can be pedantic at times but the sheer self righteous arrogance of Col ticks people off worse than anything.

Not sure if this post is breaking any forum rules but I feel someone has to back Karl on this.

Ryal Kane.

Magnus Vile · Oct 7, 2004

SIXDAYCREATIONIST said:
Colossians, good post. Amazing how they have no answers.

So youeither cannot read, did not read, or ignored the answers that were presented? Which is it?

SIXDAYCREATIONIST said:
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg. That one was easy in Junior School, actually it was easy in Nursery...

SIXDAYCREATIONIST said:
Now get ready for some excuses!!!

Predicting your own posts doesn't qualify as prophecy, you know that, right? So you really don't have to post your excuses for lying. Please don't, I rather like not having anyone on ignore.

Alessandro · Oct 7, 2004

Dear members,

Due to this thread progressing in an inappropriate manner it is now closed, the thread and posts will be reviewed and will be dealt with accordingly.

God Bless you

Alessandro
Christian Forums S Moderator

The second question evolutionists can't answer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jet Black

Guest

SIXDAYCREATIONIST

Guest

I'm my own wireless hotspot

Well-Known Member

Ace2whoa - resident geneticist

...more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...

Jet Black

Guest

Prism Ranger

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Alive In God

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency