Spirituality
12 May 12
17 May 12
Originally posted by RJHinds( yawn )
This is nothing but hogwash. Your just as indoctrinated to believe in evolution as the JWs are by the Watchtower to belief their cult religion. There is no reasoning with you on evolution just the same as you can not reason with JWs on their cult religion. You use speculation and assumptions as proof instead of facts. You are blinded by the deception of Satan in the same way.
17 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThat is just an irritating and disrespectful interruption to a debate on this forum.
More hogwash.
You have nothing new to say that you have not said over and over in earlier threads.
You simply make unsupported assertions.
Your contributions are not sufficiently coherent to qualify as an opinion.
You do not engage with anyone that disagrees with you beyond abuse such as the post this responds to.
You disrupt the flow of more genuine debates between others on the forum, effectively killing the debate quite often.
This is abuse of the forum.
17 May 12
5 edits
Originally posted by humySome of us think of Evolution as succeeding or failing.
That's as stupid as saying that a hurricane must be “succeeding or failing” and must involve a goal.
Evolution isn't “succeeding or failing” because the measure of 'success' or 'failure' of something is presumably how close that something comes to a goal but evolution has no goal to appened. The fact that most of that evidence is indirect is totally irrelevant.
That's as stupid as saying that a hurricane must be “succeeding or failing” and must involve a goal.
Wish I had loads of time to debate. But it will have to wait.
1.) Let's remember that you are the one who wants to make the hurricane and the evolution process pretty much the same. I think the comparison is not helpful.
2.) You certainly can speak of a hurricane succeeding to be formulated from some tropical weather condition or failing to form from one.
So if you insist on the comparison, I think you better quite while you're ahead. Certainly a hurricane could succeed or fail to materialize. What would be "stupid" is to deny this.
Now back to Evolution. I am pretty sure that secretly, you do think of the success and failure of evolution. I am not sure why you think you lose something in the matter by admitting it.
We have to think this way about Evolution. We do not mean consciousness. But we do mean some goal was met or was not met. You protest "NO GOAL!" But when I catch you talking that way I will point it out to you.
Tell me this. Is a human evolutions step to produce a better sperm? Or is a sperm an evolutionary step to produce a better human ?
We know that a male mammel produces sperm for reproduction. That sperm is a living organism. Which is the case ? Is the male mammal evolution's selection to produce a more survivable sperm ? Or is a male sperm evolution's selection to produce another adult mammal ?
If there is no purpose, no goal of your Evolution process than we certainly can view the organism of a sperm cell as at the top of the ladder of evolved beings. In that case man exists primarily to produce these little sperm cells by the millions. They are living. They "need" us to produce more of them.
I think most people would think the other way around. That is the sperm cells produced by the millions and set swimming towards the female egg are evolutions selection to produce more adult male animals.
IF you fall back into some pseudo Buddhist attitude that it doesn't matter or that "purpose" is an illusion, or that "goal" is an illusion, I'd say that is your religion speaking and not your science.
IF you say, "It depends on how you look at it" I think that is your metaphysical relativism philosophizing.
We have to use words like "purpose" and "goal" in relation to the process. Now try your best to tell me:
Which is evolution trying to do:
1.) Use mammals to reproduce better surviving sperm cells ?
2.) Use more sperm cells to reproduce better surviving mammals ?
Choose which scenario you think reflects the real world. And I hope you can do so without escaping into some pseudo Buddhist view that any "purpose" or "goal" is only an illusion.
17 May 12
Originally posted by finneganAnd noticeably silent as a rebuttal to your post.
That is just an irritating and disrespectful interruption to a debate on this forum.
You have nothing new to say that you have not said over and over in earlier threads.
You simply make unsupported assertions.
Your contributions are not sufficiently coherent to qualify as an opinion.
You do not engage with anyone that disagrees with you beyo ...[text shortened]... others on the forum, effectively killing the debate quite often.
This is abuse of the forum.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
17 May 12
Originally posted by jaywillevolution isnt 'trying' to do anything. your questions are meaningless.
Which is evolution trying to do:
1.) Use mammals to reproduce better surviving sperm cells ?
2.) Use more sperm cells to reproduce better surviving mammals ?
Choose which scenario you think reflects the real world. And I hope you can do so without escaping into some pseudo Buddhist view that any "purpose" or "goal" is only an illusion.
if you leave a glass of water on a windowsill what is it trying to do?
Originally posted by finneganYou said, "The criterion of success in Evolution is a viable living creature that can reproduce successfully. It is not that hard to pinpoint examples."
That is just an irritating and disrespectful interruption to a debate on this forum.
You have nothing new to say that you have not said over and over in earlier threads.
You simply make unsupported assertions.
Your contributions are not sufficiently coherent to qualify as an opinion.
You do not engage with anyone that disagrees with you beyo ...[text shortened]... others on the forum, effectively killing the debate quite often.
This is abuse of the forum.
That is because we have that already from creation and we don't need evolution for that.
Then you go on to say, "You are probably sitting on one now or maybe it is sitting on you."
What is that suppose to mean? That is about as clear as mud. It is just hogwash.
You said, "Darwin did experimental work on as well as observational studies of actually existing natural species."
Darwin studied adaptation by natural selection, not evolution. He did not even use the term evolution, while he used the term creation several times. He named his book "Origin of the Species". It was all about adaptation. It was only at the end that he speculated that, "Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide."... "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter14.html
From jaywill, "This Evolution process proposed is far far too constructive. The comparison to the hurricane or avalanche, though these are also natural processes, seems unrealistic to me."
You say, "I wonder what that statement actually says?"
Surely you most know the difference between "the theory of evolution" and a hurricane or avalanche. Hurricanes and avalanches are destructive, not constructive, idiot.
And Dawkins is another idiot in my opinion. Don't you remember this video in which a woman asks for an example in evolution that increased the information in the genome, which he could not answer and then he comes back talking about something different and accusing others of not understanding that modern apes are not our ancestors.
And the rest of your post was more hogwash that I was not in the mood to respond to.
Originally posted by RJHinds
You said, .....
And the rest of your post was more hogwash that I was not in the mood to respond to.
You said, "The criterion of success in Evolution is a viable living creature that can reproduce successfully. It is not that hard to pinpoint examples."
That is because we have that already from creation and we don't need evolution for that.
No. What we see in front of us is the material, natural world for which we seek an explanation. You propose Creation as your explanation. To use Jawyill's argument, you were not there at the time to observe Creation. You only refer to Creation because we do indeed require an explanation.
Then you go on to say, "You are probably sitting on one now or maybe it is sitting on you."
What is that suppose to mean? That is about as clear as mud. It is just hogwash.
I refer to microbes. My point is that you do not even have to move from your computer screen to find examples of life. Arguably you are an example yourself, though I am not sure you pass Turing's test for me to tell the difference between talking to a person or talking to a computer. Your responses are repetitive and narrow.
Darwin studied adaptation by natural selection, not evolution. He did not even use the term evolution, while he used the term creation several times. He named his book "Origin of the Species". It was all about adaptation. It was only at the end that he speculated that, "Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide."...
Quite so. Darwin was surrounded by people who already regarded evolution as self evident. His task was more specific - to account for the origin of species - to account for the diversity of living forms and their changes over time, ranging from the dinosaurs of which fossils were emerging in huge numbers to the different breeds of dog and pidgeon in domestic and farm life. He had in mind the prevailing view, which he initially favoured, of Intelligent Design, set out by Paley, and indeed took pride that his room at univesity was previously occupied by his hero Paley. Much to his own regret, he concluded that Paley was wrong and offered a better theory, which was not (as you say) the theory of evolution, but rather the theory of evolution by natural selection.
So will you now stop referrring to Darwin's theory of evolution and attributing to Darwin every cockeyed belief that has been uttered regarding evolution?
Surely you most know the difference between "the theory of evolution" and a hurricane or avalanche. Hurricanes and avalanches are destructive, not constructive, idiot.
Yes I see your point. My point is that any account of evolution (by natural selection, by intelligent design, by creation in seven days, whatever) must by definition be constructive. Hence that is not a terribly coherent objection to raise. We see evolution and that is what we must account for.
And Dawkins is another idiot in my opinion. Don't you remember this video in which a woman asks for an example in evolution that increased the information in the genome, which he could not answer and then he comes back talking about something different and accusing others of not understanding that modern apes are not our ancestors.
In a live debate I am sure even you (on your speaking engagements which I am sure will be flowing) will from time to time stumble over an unexpected and obscure question. The questioner arrives with a prepackaged argument which may be quite outside what you are prepared for. It is called being ambushed. By all means, I agree that Dawkins sometimes digs himself into a hole and ought to stop digging but he has the guts to go out and debate with people that are hostile. His writing however is typically excellent (I refer to his biology and not his God Delusion et al, which are more quarrelsome and less effective.)
And the rest of your post was more hogwash that I was not in the mood to respond to.
Never mind. You did awfully well to debate as much as you did and the abuse was quite subdued for you, though still a bit rich for my taste. Maybe in time we can train you up.
Originally posted by jaywillPerhaps you are a fan of the Selfish Gene?
In other words in all the tree diagrams of Evolutionary development, why don't we see a human SPERM cell at the top rather than a HUMAN ?
It is perfectly possible now to draw up an evolutionary tree based on genes rather than the species they generate. I am not sure how complete this will be but it will be fairly extensive. Indeed, genetics has supplied excellent new information to classify species by their appropriate ancestry.
Of course there are too many men who think the pinnacle of Creation is not the sperm but the organ of its transmission.
17 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThat's as stupid as saying that a hurricane must be “succeeding or failing” and must involve a goal.
Wish I had loads of time to debate. But it will have to wait.
1.) Let's remember that you are the one who wants to make the hurricane and the evolution process pretty much the same. I think the comparison is not helpful.
2.) Y seudo Buddhist view that any "purpose" or "goal" is only an illusion.
Certainly a hurricane could succeed or fail to materialize.
so, according to your logic that you use for evolution, a hurricane must have its own materialization as its goal 😛
What would be "stupid" is to deny this.
yes, it would be "stupid" is to deny a hurricane could succeed or fail to materialize. And I wouldn't deny this nor have I ever implied that I would deny this.
What I would deny is that this must means a hurricane has a goal -that WOULD be stupid.
Now back to Evolution. I am pretty sure that secretly, you do think of the success and failure of evolution. I am not sure why you think you lose something in the matter by admitting it.
if I believed that evolution had a GOAL ( which I don't ) then admitting that would mean I LOSE all credibility for that would be a stupid belief.
Is a human evolutions step to produce a better sperm? Or is a sperm an evolutionary step to produce a better human ?
That is vague and confusing: “to produce” with the intention of? Or “to produce” as in mindlessly “to produce”?
And how is merely a thing like a “human” or a “sperm” an “evolutions step” or an “ evolutionary step”? -an “evolutionary step” only makes sense in the context involves a CHANGE from one form to another.
And what is “evolutions step”? You are throwing me off with this eccentric plural for “evolution”.
IF you fall back into some pseudo Buddhist attitude that it doesn't matter or that "purpose" is an illusion, or that "goal" is an illusion,
what on earth are you talking about? Are you insisting that just because we point out the fact that a natural process such as evolution doesn't have a goal that that must mean that we are claiming/believing that ALL goals are an illusion? 😛 -That is just a stupid suggestion. OF COURSE we don't believe/claim that!
Which is evolution trying to do:
NOTHING. It is not “trying”.
1.) Which is evolution trying to do:
Use mammals to reproduce better surviving sperm cells ?
2.) Use more sperm cells to reproduce better surviving mammals ?
Choose which scenario you think reflects the real world.
I choose to choose the only correct choice: NEITHER.
17 May 12
Originally posted by humyIf you guys would just admit that what you are referring to is "adaptation" and there is no "evolution" in living systems, then we could agree and there would be no need for further argument. Then none of us would be ignorant, stupid, or idiots.Certainly a hurricane could succeed or fail to materialize.
so, according to your logic that you use for evolution, a hurricane must have its own materialization as its goal 😛What would be "stupid" is to deny this.
yes, it would be "stupid" is to deny a hurricane could succeed or fail to materialize. And I wouldn't den ...[text shortened]... s the real world. [/quote]
I choose to choose the only correct choice: NEITHER.
17 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganThe beauty of online debate is that you can just scroll past those who are not contributing.
That is just an irritating and disrespectful interruption to a debate on this forum.
You have nothing new to say that you have not said over and over in earlier threads.
You simply make unsupported assertions.
Your contributions are not sufficiently coherent to qualify as an opinion.
You do not engage with anyone that disagrees with you beyo ...[text shortened]... others on the forum, effectively killing the debate quite often.
This is abuse of the forum.
It's not like an in-person debate where someone could wreak havoc by 'talking over' the more thoughtful participants.
Hell, you can even get Firefox and use an add-on + script that will censor posters by name. [I just don't want other people to do it on my behalf, unless there's spamming.]
I see no reason why debates are killed by this guy. They seem to go on well enough despite him.
17 May 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitMy purpose on here is not to debate, but to stir you guys in the direction of the Truth. HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏
The beauty of online debate is that you can just scroll past those who are not contributing.
It's not like an in-person debate where someone could wreak havoc by 'talking over' the more thoughtful participants.
Hell, you can even get Firefox and use an add-on + script that will censor posters by name. [I just don't want other people to do it on my ...[text shortened]... e no reason why debates are killed by this guy. They seem to go on well enough despite him.