That was pointless. There is no need to give up ANYTHING when all you've done is transfer from a contradictory position to another contradictory position. Since you are not thinking anything through you've no need to worry because nothing will change. If you want things to change then I suggest you actually apply a little thought.<quoted text>
One more correction! I AM NO LONGER A DEIST! I had to let it go because it was in violation of the law of non-contradiction!
Teachers won't have any reason to underperform when they realise that government is taking them seriously, says Ace Moloi .Full Story
#285 Jun 3, 2013
#286 Jun 3, 2013
There are a number of reasons why I am qualified and you aren't.
Science exams - I passed, you flunked.
English exams - I passed, you flunked.
You have already forgotten that you were the one who has rejected accepted definitions to make your point.
For the sake of argument you will note that I have accepted the law of non-contradiction right from the beginning. Restating a definition I am already using correctly will not change the fact that you are not.
The origin of species it not founded on that in any way shape or form. You are incorrectly assuming a label made up by humans to describe life forms restricts biological change. It does not.
I am not disqualified in the slightest. You ALREADY lost the grammar war. You redefined "opposite" to include more than two diametrically opposed subjects. This is not how the word "opposite" works. And since I learned that when I was four years old and you have a minimum of 30 years extra life experience and STILL not got that leaves you at a distinct disadvantage. Your incorrect use of the word violates the law of non-contradiction.
You redefined the term accumulative change to claim change never happens.
You are in violation of the law of non-contradiction.
You also redefined species to reject evolution. NO WORKING biologist on the entire PLANET accepts your definition of species because evolution is accepted by EVERY major science institution in the world. ALL valid scientific definitions of the word allow for speciation. You have rejected the concept for philosophical reasons. You are in violation of the law of non-contradiction.
Deception Bay, Australia
#288 Aug 12, 2013
Its not a fact.
“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”
Since: May 08
#289 Aug 13, 2013
Yes it is.
Add your comments below
|Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11)||3 min||dirtclod||120,817|
|Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist"||6 min||woodtick57||369|
|The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism||1 hr||The Dude||708|
|It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09)||1 hr||Dogen||138,177|
|Darwin on the rocks||3 hr||The Dude||358|
|Monkey VS Man||Sun||Bluenose||14|
|Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution||Sun||TurkanaBoy||204|
Find what you want!
Search Evolution Debate Forum Now