Which should survive: relativity or Evolution?

[Gottservant]

No, relativity and evolution don't compete at all.

Ok.

Give reasons.

You are pretty quick to say Creationism is "wrong", it doesn't seem to bother you to use the rules competition there.

 

[bhsmte]

Ok.

Give reasons.

You are pretty quick to say Creationism is "wrong", it doesn't seem to bother you to use the rules competition there.

It's your op, why don't you give us reasons why they do compete, if that is your position?

 

[pgp_protector]

Ok.

Give reasons.

You are pretty quick to say Creationism is "wrong", it doesn't seem to bother you to use the rules competition there.

I Did, you just don't seem to understand.

We'll make is simple (Though I doubt you'll understand)

relativity* is not a Biological function and their is no Reproductive act in relativity*.


*Assuming you're talking about The theory of relativity, or simply relativity in physics, usually encompasses two theories by Albert Einstein: special relativity and general relativity.

 

[Gottservant]

It's your op, why don't you give us reasons why they do compete, if that is your position?

I just gave you a reason: creationism.

Moreover, Evolutionists typically state that "everything competes" (with the statement "it (whatever you want it to be) is survival of the fittest").

So unless you want to qualify what counts as competition, perhaps reconsider generalizing the theory of Evolution to everything?

 

[Gottservant]

I Did, you just don't seem to understand.

I'm sorry, no you didn't.

 

[bhsmte]

I just gave you a reason: creationism.

Moreover, Evolutionists typically state that "everything competes" (with the statement "it (whatever you want it to be) is survival of the fittest").

So unless you want to qualify what counts as competition, perhaps reconsider generalizing the theory of Evolution to everything?

Back to the drawing board got.

 

[Gottservant]

there will be someone who can function at this level of understanding

you are too quick to assume the topic can be scrapped, at any rate

 

[selfinflikted]

Changed my mind. -20/10 stars.

Also, minus 50 DKP.

 

[rjw]

Hi there,

Please answer the dilemma.

Thankyou.

Whiskey, I think.

 

[selfinflikted]

Whiskey, I think.

Seconded!

 

[Gracchus]

You should know by now that anything posted by Gottservant makes little or no sense; even by the standards of fundamentalists.

Oh, give him a break. He's not taking his medication.

 

[Gottservant]

What I write is a mixture of the surreal and the virtual, I'm sorry but I'm not changing it because your brains can't function viscerally in a matrix not of your making.

 

[crjmurray]

Oh, give him a break. He's not taking his medication.

I disagree. I think when Gott is on here posting in this manner he is ON his medication.

 

[crjmurray]

What I write is a mixture of the surreal and the virtual, I'm sorry but I'm not changing it because your brains can't function viscerally in a matrix not of your making.

You are the one posting in a unique way. Does it make sense that you should be able to explain your points to us who don't understand? You are never very descriptive in your posts (from our point of view). So on this question alone could you please explain in as much detail as you can what you are asking?

 

[Gottservant]

It's very simple.

One mutation (random).

Two adaptations (relativity and evolution).

Selection pressure for competitiveness (winner/loser).

Please rationally relate these facts into an answer.

If the theory of Evolution takes coherent inputs as I have given, you should be able to resolve the dilemma (by choosing one or the other, or explaining why you needn't (either way)).

I'm not trying to construct a theory here, I am just trying to input something meaningful into the theory you say "already exists".

 

[crjmurray]

It's very simple.

One mutation (random).

Two adaptations (relativity and evolution).

Selection pressure for competitiveness (winner/loser).

Please rationally relate these facts into an answer.

If the theory of Evolution takes coherent inputs as I have given, you should be able to resolve the dilemma (by choosing one or the other, or explaining why you needn't (either way)).

I'm not trying to construct a theory here, I am just trying to input something meaningful into the theory you say "already exists".

Is there a reason that you think the two are mutually exclusive?

Edit: this may be simple to you but we just need some clarification.

 

[Gottservant]

Is there a reason that you think the two are mutually exclusive?

Edit: this may be simple to you but we just need some clarification.

I think its just a fact, relativity is about a double order of magnitude greater in scope than Evolution.

If you pit the two against each other, Evolution will lose.

If you think you need to pit the two against each other, something is wrong with Evolution.

I am simply bringing this to a head.

 

[Strathos]

Which should survive: Literature or windsurfing?

A question that makes just about as much sense

 

[Gottservant]

Which should survive: Literature or windsurfing?

A question that makes just about as much sense

Yes, but I can answer it.

I prefer literature.

You would say "windsurfing makes you fitter".

The problem is your parallel has nothing at stake, to the contrary the fact that you think you can pit anything against anything else fails in relation to relativity (which is the point of my demonstration).

Unless that is, you can do better than you've done so far.

 

[crjmurray]

You just said the point of your demonstration. Could you explicitly explain your point? Put it into some detail? Right now, your question does not make a lot of sense to us. Go ahead and explain it in detail so we all understand what you're asking.