It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103653 Dec 4, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Hold onto that thought. Unless you've made some changes, your time will come again.
I look forward to it.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#103654 Dec 4, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell the class why you shifted gears to the word "select" for your definitions when the word which has been under consideration and even used by you in your definition post is "selection".
BTW, indeed the words "select" and "selection" each have multiple accepted (standard) meaning options. Why are you trying to be unnecessarily/unjustifiably restrictive?
It doesnt matter how many different definitions they have: select will always be related to selection in the context that they are used. What is your point?

You obviously find fulfilment in words games.

Try Scrabble.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103655 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
What are those traits superior to?
How do you measure the superiority of any trait?
You certainly cant measure the superiority of a trait based on the traits of other organisms; because the fact that one is weak doesn't make the other strong. There is only a probability that is might be stronger.
You have yet to identify the element in nature which "selects", therefore selection is only an abstract idea.
The tendency for one organism to survive while the other tends to die, is purely accidental; not the influence of selection.
Notice that up to now they have not attempted to make a prediction regarding what is likely to be "selected". Thats because they dont know that anything is selected at any time.
How many times do you have to be told that natural selection is a result? You seem to be thinking in terms of PRE-selection. There is no premeditation. No goal. Man, you've got one thick head.
KAB

United States

#103656 Dec 4, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Go away.
Yes, the clear truth, irrefutably presented, can be quite intimidating when you're not on its side. However, when you're completely committed to it you can proceed boldly without apprehension/angst.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#103657 Dec 4, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You're confusing acting against God's will, for which I provided a chapter and verse direct-from-the-Bible confirming example, with thwarting his purpose which, agreed, none of us can do (Is. 55:10,11). Specifically using the example cited, Cain's actions were against Yahweh's will but did not thwart his purpose. Cain's parents had another son, and Yahweh's purpose proceeded on apace.
Ok so let me get this straight:

It is will that guides or fulfils purpose; yet you cant thwart purpose by acting against will?

So if I establish that the purpose of the sun is to shine, and by my will act so that the sun shines:

Are you saying that you cant affect my purpose for the sun to shine, by resisting my efforts to make the sun shine?

If purpose is supported by will; how can you frustrate will without thwarting purpose?

Do you see why you need to stop talking and start listening?
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#103658 Dec 4, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times do you have to be told that natural selection is a result? You seem to be thinking in terms of PRE-selection. There is no premeditation. No goal. Man, you've got one thick head.
The suffix "ion" denotes an action or condition; none of which are final in and of themselves but are the results of actions and conditions and will in turn spur further actions and conditions.

Furthermore, natural selection cannot be a result while it is held to be the "engine which drives evolution".

You dont even know your own crap.
KAB

United States

#103659 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
It doesnt matter how many different definitions they have: select will always be related to selection in the context that they are used. What is your point?
You obviously find fulfilment in words games.
Try Scrabble.
I stated my point in gameless words, as evidenced by the fact that you didn't answer my question and explain your actions with ANY words.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103660 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
The suffix "ion" denotes an action or condition; none of which are final in and of themselves but are the results of actions and conditions and will in turn spur further actions and conditions.
Furthermore, natural selection cannot be a result while it is held to be the "engine which drives evolution".
You dont even know your own crap.
I do. You seem incapable of understanding it. Cherry pick all the quotes or definitions you like. It's not helping your case.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#103661 Dec 4, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I do. You seem incapable of understanding it. Cherry pick all the quotes or definitions you like. It's not helping your case.
I could say the say about you :P

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103662 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
I could say the say about you :P
You could but you would be wrong once again.
KAB

United States

#103663 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so let me get this straight:
It is will that guides or fulfils purpose; yet you cant thwart purpose by acting against will?
So if I establish that the purpose of the sun is to shine, and by my will act so that the sun shines:
Are you saying that you cant affect my purpose for the sun to shine, by resisting my efforts to make the sun shine?
If purpose is supported by will; how can you frustrate will without thwarting purpose?
Do you see why you need to stop talking and start listening?
Your will does not make the sun shine. Rather, it is action taken in harmony with your will which does. Someone "acting" against your will can attempt to prevent the sun from shining, but if you are the almighty, they will not succeed in preventing the sun from shining although they acted against your will in trying.

Do you see why you need to think more before talking? It's also immensely helpful to be committed to the truth instead of your present agenda!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#103664 Dec 4, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
You failed to mention the "some" who accept, adhere to, and teach what the Bible actually relates. I realize you can't get as much laugh mileage out of them, so I understand. Of course there's always the possibility you are unaware that such exist. They are easily lost in, as you alluded to, the abundance of what the world generally knows as religion.
No argument.

I actually DO respect persons of faith, as long as it's peaceful, and genuine.

That I don't necessarily have the particular brand of faith they have is irrelevant.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#103665 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
THe moment you assert that there is no Entity/Agent that caused creation; you implied that is is accidental, according to the general definition of "accident".
Furthermore, you analogies are quite irrelevant.
It is purely accidental that any organism survives, especially in light of the fact that they are continually experiencing mutations during their active life.
Mutations within other organisms in the population may make reproduction unsuccessful.
There is nothing to guarantee that the environment will be suitable once an organism is born.
There are predators that may consume even the most well adapted organisms... there are even diseases.
These are only a few of the odds stacked against living organisms
at every moment in their life.
Nature is not a controlled environment like your labs; shit happens quite frequently. And the slightest change can wipe out a whole species/population... the single drop in an essential element in their food supply could lead to malnourishment, and deformed offspring.
Natural selection is just another way of saying "accidental survival"; because the chances are that even the fittest will die. As a mater of fact, they eventually do.
What was unfit about dinosaurs by the way; and where are they now?
The opposite of designed is not "accidental." Nor is the opposite of designed "random." Nor is it "chance." Like I said, you clearly don't understand the words you're using. That's why your arguments fail. You don't get to redefine everything for your own purposes and then declare that reality conforms to your personal redefinitions. That is little more than delusion. You're welcome to be delusional, but stop getting butt-hurt that everybody else thinks you're batshit bonkers when you speak.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103666 Dec 4, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
The opposite of designed is not "accidental." Nor is the opposite of designed "random." Nor is it "chance." Like I said, you clearly don't understand the words you're using. That's why your arguments fail. You don't get to redefine everything for your own purposes and then declare that reality conforms to your personal redefinitions. That is little more than delusion. You're welcome to be delusional, but stop getting butt-hurt that everybody else thinks you're batshit bonkers when you speak.
Precisely.
KAB

United States

#103667 Dec 4, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
No argument.
I actually DO respect persons of faith, as long as it's peaceful, and genuine.
That I don't necessarily have the particular brand of faith they have is irrelevant.
Perhaps the real difference between us then is your not having faith in the Bible?
KAB

United States

#103668 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
The suffix "ion" denotes an action or condition; none of which are final in and of themselves but are the results of actions and conditions and will in turn spur further actions and conditions.
Furthermore, natural selection cannot be a result while it is held to be the "engine which drives evolution".
You dont even know your own crap.
I've noticed that the ENGINE in my car is the RESULT of design EFFORT. What puzzles me is how an ENGINE can be a RESULT!
KAB

United States

#103669 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so let me get this straight:
It is will that guides or fulfils purpose; yet you cant thwart purpose by acting against will?
So if I establish that the purpose of the sun is to shine, and by my will act so that the sun shines:
Are you saying that you cant affect my purpose for the sun to shine, by resisting my efforts to make the sun shine?
If purpose is supported by will; how can you frustrate will without thwarting purpose?
Do you see why you need to stop talking and start listening?
P.S.
If you wanted to create the illusion of thwarting your will for the sun to shine you could always stick your head where the sun don't shine!
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#103670 Dec 4, 2012
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You could but you would be wrong once again.
Yeah, like you are, every time you talk about me.
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish

Kingston, Jamaica

#103671 Dec 4, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
...but if you are the almighty, they will not succeed in preventing the sun from shining although they acted against your will in trying...
Exactly!

So what are you disputing?

If God is Almighty, and nothing will succeed in preventing His will from being done; how is it possible to "sin" against Him, in the sense of acting contrary to His will?

I know what Moses said God told him to write about Cain. But what is written and how it is written has always depended on the objective of the individual who is writing.

It is possible that Moses asked God how he could write the history of the nation to make them appear powerful and victorious.

WHAT IS WRITTEN IS WRITTEN FOOOOR MAN: "these things are written that ye may believe" [John].

By virtue of His Omnipotence, God has no real reason to even notice history; so what was written was written in the interest of theman who was writing.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#103672 Dec 4, 2012
Evo-Lotion is Rub-ish wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, like you are, every time you talk about me.
No need. You do it to yourself.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 7 min Denisova 1,333
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 17 min Denisova 16,534
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 31 min Denisova 149,081
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 1 hr Denisova 568
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 11 hr Jaimie 176,785
Thereis no real truth in this world 13 hr The Dude 16
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 14 hr paul porter 1
More from around the web