- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,624
- 52,515
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
Which one of the above is keeping you out of this country?Not in my experience. Ignorance, arrogance, poor education and indoctrination breed intolerance.
And yet, the "darwinists" got it right. Individual organisms don't evolve, population do over different generations.
Let us suppose a population of 3 organisms, each carrying a slightly different version of a gene G. So organism 1 carries G1, organism 2 carries G2, organism 3 carries G3. (And assuming asexual reproduction, for simplicity)
At this moment the population is made up of 33% G1, 33% G2, 33% G3.
Organism 1 dies without offspring, organism 2 has 2 offsprings (and dies) and organism 3 has 3 offsprings (and dies).
So the genetic frequency en the next generation is; G1 0%, G2 40%, G3 60%. These frequencies have changed and G1 is not in the gene pool anymore. The population has evolved but not the individual organisms.
So let us assume a third generation; the two G2-carriers each have 1 offspring (and die), two G3-carriers have each 2 offsprings, but of these four have a mutation, and carries now a new variation G4. So in the third generation you have 2 G2-genes (33)%, 3 G3-genes (51%) and 1 G4 gene (17%).
Again, the population has evolved, because the frequency in genes has changed over the different generations, but the individual organisms have not evolved during their life time.
Clear, or do you have any question?
You wrote: "Evolution is a process that happens on the scale of entire populations over the course of generations."
"Evolution" is a word Darwinists persistently use in a cognitively meaningless way, as you're doing, here. It's not the name of any biological reproduction process.
Oh, and, by your word, "populations," do you mean groups of individual animals? And, by your word, "generations," do you mean groups of individual animals?
You wrote: "It isn't a matter of a single wolf transforming into a dog"
Why do you choose to say "a single wolf," and to not, instead, just say "a wolf"? What's the difference between what you would call just "a wolf" and what you would call "a single wolf"?
Darwinists say "Wolves evolved into dogs." Wolves are individuals, no? So, are Darwinists, when they say that, affirming something about wolves—that is, affirming something about individuals? If they are not, then what they are demonstrating by saying "Wolves evolved into dogs" is that they cannot get human language to work for them. And that is because Darwinists haven't got any cognitively meaningful thing to say, therein. Darwinists have all sorts of verbal forms they like to say, but, almost invariably, Darwinists qua Darwinists have no propositional content behind those verbal forms—they fail to be expressing any proposition(s) therein. When Darwinists say things like "Wolves evolved into dogs," not only are they not affirming a true proposition, but what they are doing does not even rise to the level of affirming a false proposition.
You wrote: "With humans and chimps both coming from a common ape ancestor"
No non-human is an ancestor of any human. No human is a descendant of any non-human. Both parents of every human who has parents are, themselves, humans. Trace any human's descent through any line, for as many "begats" backward as you'd like, and every member of that ancestry is a human, and not a non-human:
...human → human → human → human → human → human → human → human → human...
( → = "is the parent of a")
Numerous Darwinists have given lip service to agreeing with this elementary truth, but invariably, every single one of them, has then, out of the other side of his/her mouth, blatantly contradicted it by telling me that non-humans are ancestors of humans. Darwinists continue their war against truth and logic, for which war they even coined a ridiculous name: "fuzzy logic". For my part, being a rationally-thinking person rather than a Darwinist, I'll continue to adhere to truth and logic.
You wrote: "You've probably seen this image of fossils of the extinct species that clearly shows how difficult it is to differentiate "ape" from "man"."
You don't differentiate between non-man and man? Also, are those sarcasm quotes you put around your word, "ape," and around your word, "man"? By your word, "ape," do you mean non-man? By your word, "man," do you mean non-ape?
Notice your phrase, "fossils of the extinct species"—another nonsense phrase. A fossil is remains or a casting of remains of an animal that has died. Just as, out of one side of the Darwinist's mouth, he/she says "Animals evolve," and then repudiates that by saying, out of the other, "Animals don't evolve—species evolve," I'd not be surprised to see you follow suit with that asinine practice by saying something like, "Animals don't become fossilized—species become fossilized."
You wrote: "...genetic and fossil evidence demonstrates..."
That's a funny phrase, "evidence demonstrates." I mean, by "demonstrate," what would you mean if not "give evidence"? So, is this what you mean when you say "evidence demonstrates": "evidence [gives evidence]"?
If you wish to tell us that giving evidence for the proposition, P, and demonstrating the proposition, P, are not one and the same thing, then please feel free to tell us exactly how, according to your imagination, the evidence-giving differs from the demonstrating.
You wrote: "Evidence isn't perfect and I never claimed it was."
You never claimed evidence is perfect? Duh. Rather, you claimed evidence is worthless.
You wrote: "It is the most reliable method I've seen presented."
Huh? Evidence is a method now? A method to do what, exactly? I thought that a method is a way of doing something. So, are you seriously telling me that evidence is a way of doing something? You clearly do not even spend so much as a second's worth of time thinking about the stuff you write.
You wrote: "Trivial."
What is the subject of this "sentence" you just wrote, and what its predicate? Or, are you merely emoting yet again?
You wrote: "The preponderance of evidence implies that you have thoroughly investigated the situation and come to a conclusion based on all available evidence."
"The preponderance of evidence" that (according to you) "supports" false propositions?
"Come to a conclusion based on all available evidence" that (according to you) "supports" false propositions?
You wrote: "Also, when I said that evidence can be found that supports false propositions, I wasn't implying that evidence can be found to support any proposition."
On what were you basing that asinine, false claim of yours; on what were you basing it that "evidence can be found that supports false propositions"?
Let's hear it: What "evidence" do you have to "support" your false proposition that "evidence can be found that supports false propositions"?
You wrote: "Lets [sic] just say you have two bits of data..."
What do you mean by this word, "data," which I do not recall having seen you write in our back-and-forth? By it, do you mean fact?
You wrote: "Lets [sic] just say you have two bits of data, a holiday photo of some people labelled: "Us at the Grand Canyon on our trip to the USA!" and the other bit of data is a postcard for "Rhode Island, USA!" you now have limited evidence and a possible conclusion is that they are the same place."
Please lay out for us the "argument" you're trying to describe; lay it out out in a syllogism for me. How many premise propositions are you talking about, and what propositions are they? Fill in the following blanks with whatever propositions you are talking about and calling "limited evidence", so that we can see exactly what "argument" you are trying to describe. And, you've already told us what it is you are calling a "conclusion" to this "argument" you're trying to describe: "they [the Grand Canyon and Rhode Island] are the same place".
Premise 1: ______________________________.
Premise 2: ______________________________.
....
Premise n: ______________________________.
Conclusion: "The Grand Canyon is Rhode Island."
Your false proposition, "[The Grand Canyon and Rhode Island] are the same place" is supported by nothing you've said so far.
You wrote: "People can be reasonable or unreasonable in why they accept things."
Contrary to what you are trying to hand me in your war against truth and logic, rationally-thinking people such as myself understand that it is never reasonable to believe one or more false propositions.
You wrote: "The evidence of genetic relatedness of modern animals is consistent with the evidence of species transition found in geological evidence for the history of the Earth."
Your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor is not evidence for anything. It is a false proposition, and, unlike you, no rationally-thinking person will ever call a false proposition "evidence". But, the fact that you are unabashedly willing to call a false proposition "evidence" is evidence that, I said before, you're doctrine of the nature of evidence is worse than useless.
My bet is that we end up getting Pascal's Wager and the Kalam Cosmological Argument.To @Tortex Plectrum:
First off: best username I've seen on this site. I love it.
Secondly: what is the basis of the argument you're trying to make here? What is it that you are trying to say regarding your views on evolution and the theory of evolution and Darwin?
Which one of the above is keeping you out of this country?
My bet is that we end up getting Pascal's Wager and the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Philosophy students and William Lane Craig tend to think it's convincing and profound: Kalam cosmological argument.I have not come across the latter before.
Maybe he wants us to sing to him first?Are any of the above encouraging them to come in?
Philosophy students and William Lane Craig tend to think it's convincing and profound: Kalam cosmological argument.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe has a beginning, therefore has a cause.
Then some special pleading about the favourite deity of the speaker not having a beginning.
And typically some stuff about it needing to be personal, have a mind and there being only one... with a bunch of undemonstrated declarations.
Maybe he wants us to sing to him first?
Give me your tired, your poor.
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
The wretched refuse of your teaming shore.
Send these, the homeless tempest tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden shore.
Ya, but if everyone thought like Bungle Bear did, we wouldn't need a wall.Careful -- recite that to the "Build the Wall" crowd, and you might get dinged for blasphemy...
I'm just wondering which one of those is keeping him out.Bungle Bear said:Ignorance, arrogance, poor education and indoctrination breed intolerance.
Ya, but if everyone thought like Bungle Bear did, we wouldn't need a wall.
All we would need is what Bear says is keeping him out:I'm just wondering which one of those is keeping him out.
(And you in?)
Then maybe Bungle Bear will come visit us, ya think?Me? Well... One of the parties seems to appreciate a "Love it or leave it" mentality -- I prefer a "Love it and fix it" approach.
Ya ... but you don't wanna come here no more cause wez all idjits ... an that makes me feel bad.I've visited several times.
Then maybe Bungle Bear will come visit us, ya think?
OK, you win.
Darwinsim [sic] is nonsense and false propositions.
So we are left with no explanation about how life diversified over time. Now what? What have you got?
You came here to show us that the theory of evollution is bogus. So, you convinced me. Now what?Win what?
Life is changing and adapting. There are species living whch have not always been here, and there are species once here which are now extinct. What's your explanation for it?I don't know what (if anything) you mean by your phrase, "life diversified over time".
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?