Who is Mr Darwin?

[AV1611VET]

Because of me, or in spite of you?

If I read his post right, I'd say both of us.

 

[Tortex Plectrum]

You came here to show us that the theory of evollution [sic] is bogus. So, you convinced me. Now what?

Have I ever called anything "the theory of evolution"? No. I've not. You have not carefully read what I have written. Any time I have written the phrase, "the theory of evolution," I have surrounded it by quotation marks so as to point out that it is Darwinists who are calling their Darwinism—their nonsense and falsehood, their language game, their war against truth and logic—"the theory of evolution."

Life is changing and adapting.

That's as nonsensical and right out of a can as the previous phrase you handed me ("life diversified over time").

There are species living whch [sic] have not always been here, and there are species once here which are now extinct. What's your explanation for it?

I have no explanation for why you choose to parrot nonsense like that, which you've been conditioned to parrot, and then to ask me to explain why you choose to do that.

you convinced me

When you say someone "convinced" you of the proposition, P, what (if anything) do you mean by that? Are you saying that they caused you to believe P?

 

[ottawak]

Have I ever called anything "the theory of evolution"? No. I've not. You have not carefully read what I have written. Any time I have written the phrase, "the theory of evolution," I have surrounded it by quotation marks so as to point out that it is Darwinists who are calling their Darwinism—their nonsense and falsehood, their language game, their war against truth and logic—"the theory of evolution."

What "truth" is that? You have not told us yet.

When you say someone "convinced" you of the proposition, P, what (if anything) do you mean by that? Are you saying that they caused you to believe P?

Yes, you have caused me to believe that "Darwinism" is the bunk. I want to get to the bottom line here. What do you expect to to replace it with? How do you explain the existence of the biosphere? What is your explanation for the "origin of species?"

 

[Mr Laurier]

"A lot of creationists think we worship Mr Darwin"

Oh? Myself, I'm a creationist, and I rather think that Darwinists worship the word, "science". I mean, why else would they be so persistently offended when their Darwinism is called "Darwinism", by its critics, rather than called "science"?

I cannot imagine anyone worshiping a word. Any word.
Alas, there are no "Darwinists" outside corporate boardrooms. And they worship money. Not words.

 

[ottawak]

Here's a good enough true thing about conclusions that I found, in the matter of an eyeblink, on the internet: "In argumentation, a conclusion is the proposition that follows logically from the major and minor premises in a syllogism."

That is only true of deductive logic. Science proceeds on the basis of inductive logic. Scientific propositions are confirmed by evidence, not "proven" in the manner you suggest.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is only true of deductive logic. Science proceeds on the basis of inductive logic. Scientific propositions are confirmed by evidence, not "proven" in the manner you suggest.

Which came first? gravity, or evidence of gravity?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Ya ... but you don't wanna come here no more cause wez all idjits ... an that makes me feel bad.

Was you here on sum kinda intalecshul reconnaissance feeld trip or sumthing?

If we git are graids up, will you come back?

Will you also be fixing the ignorance, arrogance and indoctrination, or just the poor education which you want to pretend you got? Would it be too much to ask you to learn how to make decent coffee, too?

 

[Shemjaza]

I like how many Darwinists choose to say they "accept" this or that, eschewing the word, 'believe,' in certain contexts. Indeed, you accept what is handed out to you by those whom you mindlessly revere and call "scientists" and "science".

It represents honesty and humility about our knowledge.

I accept the facts of evolution, but I acknowledge that with more information I could be wrong.

I ask that you cease you silly lies about people you are talking to.

After handing us nonsense like this load you've just handed us, why do you Darwinists turn around and say that individuals "evolve"? Darwinists say "Fish evolved into _______." Why don't you tell us, Professor: Are fish individuals? Yes or No?

Yes. there are individual fish.

Fish is also the plural and a label for the entire group. When having a discussion it's important to understand context.

No, you did not state a wolf. Sorry, but a wolf is not something a person can state. Rather, wolf is something a person can get bitten by or can hear howling. Propositions—whether true ones or false ones—are the only things a person can state.

I stated the phrase "a single wolf", because it was in response to you asking why I said "a single wolf" instead of "a wolf".

Were you actually confused by my statement? Or were you attempting to create a way to distract from you inability to respond to the content of my post?

Once again, you have either nonsensically strung some words together or (at least equally sad) parroted some already-strung-together words from one of your professional Darwin cheerleader heroes.

BTW, whatever is not about an individual is not about a wolf, nor about a dog, since a wolf is an individual, and since a dog is an individual. And whatever is not about individuals is not about wolves, nor about dogs, since wolves are individuals, and since dogs are individuals.

What is your point. We are talking about the process of evolution and you were confused about how a process can effect a group without effecting an individual.

You do not understand that you are not speaking about, or describing, nor explaining, nor trying to explain any process.

You are still confused.

The process is call evolution, and it functions by the frequency of inherited traits varying in a population of living things over generations.

That is your assertion, but it isn't supported by evidence.

You are mistaken:
Genetic evidence
Fossil Evidence

Oh, and BTW, no rationally-thinking person cares a whit when you say that something you don't like to hear "isn't supported by evidence." Remember, you've already demonstrated that your doctrine of the nature of evidence, and your use of the word, "evidence," is worse than useless.

Yet again you are having trouble distinguishing "not perfect" from "completely useless".

You appear to be using your own definitions for words.

How do you define "evidence"?

So, since, according to you, by your word, "humans," you actually mean apes, here is what you have just handed us: "there is not a difference between [apes] and apes, because [apes] are a kind of ape."

LOLOL

You don't even spend half a second thinking about what you write.

Are you so profoundly ignorant of communication in English that you don't know that labels can be broad or specific?

A Ford Fairlane is a kind of car... so I can't define the difference between a Ford Fairlane and car.

Do you understand?

All Ford Fairlanes are cars.
Not all cars are Ford Fairlanes.

All humans are apes.
Not all apes are humans.

Do you understand now?

IOW, since by your word, "humans," you mean apes: "I can still distinguish between [apes], chimps and other apes."

See, in English, when I used the phrase "other apes" you can infer that the earlier labeled things were also apes, but I am now referring to something else, that is also an ape.

In this very sentence I demonstrated that you misunderstanding of me defining human as a word that just meant ape in general is wrong.

LOL

IOW, since by your word, "men," you mean apes: "can you tell me which are apes and which are [apes]...?"

You completely ignored the question.

You think I can't define what an ape is, but you seem to be implying that you can because it's soooo funny.

Your semantic games are not hiding that you are completely incapable of discussing the actual issue.

By your phrase, "an extinct species," do you mean an individual animal? Yes or No? See, a fossil is the remains of an individual animal.

No, when I said "an extinct species,", I meant "an extinct species,".

A fossil is the remains of an individual animal that is an example of a species.

If there are no living examples of a species then it is an extinct species.

Therefore the fossil remains of an individual animal of a species for which there are no living examples is... fossil of an extinct species.

Do you understand?

How about ceasing and desisting from parroting mumbo jumbo from your cue cards, or teleprompter, or your favorite back issues of Disney's NatGeo, or whomever you've been outsourcing your "thinking" from, and instead, trying to think carefully, rationally and analytically about what you read and write.

Pathetic.

You have spent no time actually discussing the actual evidence and science.

 

[Shemjaza]

False.

But that you just wrote that is evidence that you think irrationally when it comes to the nature of evidence. It does not follow from your proposition, "A man with a history of violence is caught running away from a building where a murder has occurred," that that man is the killer. What you've just handed us is a glaring non sequitur, and no argument.

Again, your doctrine of the nature of evidence is worse than useless.

Oh, and since you say that evidence leads to false propositions, you obviously take to heart the popular slogan, "Follow the evidence wherever it may lead," since you "follow" your "evidence" and are "lead" to believe false propositions such as Darwinism's 'All animals are descended from a common ancestor'.



What (if anything) do you mean by "determine true propositions"? I know true propositions because 1) they are true, and 2) I believe them. Knowing is believing truth. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you chant words like "science" and "evidence" while demonstrating that you are at war against, and ignorant of, truth and logic?



LOL

Here, once again, you demonstrate that you've never spent so much as five minutes studying logic. Which is a really dumb (but unsurprising) lapse on your part, seeing as how you are at war against your enemies, truth and logic. By your ignorance of logic, you demonstrate that either you've never heard the maxim, "Know your enemy," or have heard it, but rejected it, and decided against practicing it.

Here's a good enough true thing about conclusions that I found, in the matter of an eyeblink, on the internet: "In argumentation, a conclusion is the proposition that follows logically from the major and minor premises in a syllogism."

Conclusions are propositions. But the Darwinist proposition to which you are referring, here, by your phrase, "common ancestry," is not a conclusion; it's not a conclusion from evidence, it's not the conclusion of any argument. It's merely a Darwinist proposition, a false proposition being asserted by Darwinists such as you.

And, by asininely telling me that the proposition that your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor "is not a proposition," you are admitting a truth I already knew: viz., that your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor is not a true proposition. Duh! Something needs to be a proposition in order to be a true proposition, that is, in order to be truth. So, you've just admitted that your Darwinist "common ancestry" proposition is not true. You're preachin' to the choir, here, boy! Your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor is a false proposition; it is not a proposition that is true, it is a proposition that is false; it is not a truth, it is a falsehood.

False.

But that you just wrote that is evidence that you think irrationally when it comes to the nature of evidence. It does not follow from your proposition, "A man with a history of violence is caught running away from a building where a murder has occurred," that that man is the killer. What you've just handed us is a glaring non sequitur, and no argument.

Again, your doctrine of the nature of evidence is worse than useless.

Oh, and since you say that evidence leads to false propositions, you obviously take to heart the popular slogan, "Follow the evidence wherever it may lead," since you "follow" your "evidence" and are "lead" to believe false propositions such as Darwinism's 'All animals are descended from a common ancestor'.



What (if anything) do you mean by "determine true propositions"? I know true propositions because 1) they are true, and 2) I believe them. Knowing is believing truth. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you chant words like "science" and "evidence" while demonstrating that you are at war against, and ignorant of, truth and logic?



LOL

Here, once again, you demonstrate that you've never spent so much as five minutes studying logic. Which is a really dumb (but unsurprising) lapse on your part, seeing as how you are at war against your enemies, truth and logic. By your ignorance of logic, you demonstrate that either you've never heard the maxim, "Know your enemy," or have heard it, but rejected it, and decided against practicing it.

Here's a good enough true thing about conclusions that I found, in the matter of an eyeblink, on the internet: "In argumentation, a conclusion is the proposition that follows logically from the major and minor premises in a syllogism."

Conclusions are propositions. But the Darwinist proposition to which you are referring, here, by your phrase, "common ancestry," is not a conclusion; it's not a conclusion from evidence, it's not the conclusion of any argument. It's merely a Darwinist proposition, a false proposition being asserted by Darwinists such as you.

And, by asininely telling me that the proposition that your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor "is not a proposition," you are admitting a truth I already knew: viz., that your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor is not a true proposition. Duh! Something needs to be a proposition in order to be a true proposition, that is, in order to be truth. So, you've just admitted that your Darwinist "common ancestry" proposition is not true. You're preachin' to the choir, here, boy! Your Darwinist proposition that all animals are descended from a common ancestor is a false proposition; it is not a proposition that is true, it is a proposition that is false; it is not a truth, it is a falsehood.

This seems particularly silly:

1) they are true, and 2) I believe them. Knowing is believing truth.

How do you determine truth?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Have I ever called anything "the theory of evolution"? No. I've not. You have not carefully read what I have written. Any time I have written the phrase, "the theory of evolution," I have surrounded it by quotation marks so as to point out that it is Darwinists who are calling their Darwinism—their nonsense and falsehood, their language game, their war against truth and logic—"the theory of evolution."

Can you even show it's 'nonsense and falsehood'?

 

[AV1611VET]

Will you also be fixing the ignorance, arrogance and indoctrination, or just the poor education which you want to pretend you got?

Yu meen juss sos yuel grace are soyel agin.

 

[Larniavc]

In the meantime, any child can -- (or should be able to) -- give you the name of our "common ancestor."

Then you should able to. Go ahead. Even if you don’t believe it, by your logic should should be able name it.

 

[Larniavc]

Bungle Bear

Bungle Bear from Rainbow?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then you should able to. Go ahead. Even if you don’t believe it, by your logic should should be able name it.

Adam.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bungle Bear from Rainbow?

CF

 

[ottawak]

Adam.

Wrong. The biblical answer is Eve.

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong. The biblical answer is Eve.

Where'd Eve come from?

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

 

[Larniavc]

Which came first? gravity, or evidence of gravity?

Gravity works at the speed of light so gravity can exist prior to it’s effect on local space time.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Where'd Eve come from?

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

Allow me to ask again - Adam was common ancestor to humans and chimpanzees?

 

[ottawak]

Where'd Eve come from?

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

What does it matter? The question had to do with common ancestry, not earliest ancestor. Eve is the mother of all living--that's what her name means.