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

[Chimney1]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
You die and decay;
The thing which caused life keeps causing life;
Yet you are more efficient than whatever caused life to be?
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

That one is almost good enough to be used as an example of poor logic in a text book. Perhaps you need to look up the word "efficient".

[macumazahn]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
No. As we already established the Bible has leeway in "interpretation".

That's like saying that a supertanker doesn't exactly turn on a dime...

[MAAT]

marksman11 wrote:

<quoted text>So why did evolutionists change their story? They distinctly said we did not evolve from apes, but humans and apes had a common ancester. Why make a big deal of the common ancester thing, if the common ancester was an ape also??? That doesn't even make sense.<quoted text>With all due respect, it never ceases to amaze me what some people will believe.

Heavy sigh.

darwin only said that variations occurred but that whatever beak or size finches had, they were stil finches. So there must be some influence from the environment.

How did they get were they got.

How did the evolve, what did the first one look like. a.s.o.

And then we get the entire creationist christian community (since being at the zoo and seeing a novelty in the form of an ape that resembles humans a great deal) started the tune of humans deriving from apes. And never making the logic jump. They stil expect proof in the shape of a gorilla giving birth to a human, or a human to a simian.

That was also your first statement (as wel as HTS as various others) as in comparison. APE-HUMAN
The point is that we are related, out genes just duplicate a bit faster, so we look different for starters.
But ages ago you would have put us in a zoo too!
And Polynesians and Africans were!

Start thinking concestors.

[MAAT]

God Himself wrote:
quote:
Efficiency does matter; but my argument is that this efficiency is not inherent in the subject(s), but is induced or caused by an agent.
end quote.
Well that's your opinion. Not even an argument as such.

THAT is NOT what was meant!
In the way it was intended to be used, also as described in computercode: each agent generates enough random elements to let them innovate.

Agent in this sense can even be a particular bit of RNA or one virus, one fly, an ant or a bit in a computerprogram.

Memory stores experience. So keep what works. Is learning.
Intelligence: ability to solve problems and learn.
So we are a big sack full of bits that have learned a small piece, but that all work together.
Symbioticaly. What was first a predator has become part of the whole. And works to sustain it.
But IT DOES NOT THINK!
You could almost compare us to a swarm.
Bio-chemical interaction.
More dictated by organs than brain, or will thus.

You would have to proove hat will-power was at work in even the least of elements.
On the other hand the bible states free-will.
So god can never be proven by this road of reasoning.
(not that you even ever got there)

[MAAT]

every cell pumps Na and Ca very efficient.
It's the property, it's what it's doing.
(It's like explaining Eigenvalue, that's perfectly evident to native speakers of Dutch.)

Was it induced.
Yes, at a certain point.

By an outside intelligence? As in intentionally.
NO

Though our forebares would consider them gods!
Hot thermal springs near volcanoes.

The very soil that was conducive to form a shell.
A god or goddess too.

[MAAT]

Characteristic...that which defines the thing,person etc.

ex.
Eigenvalues are a special set of scalars associated with a linear system of equations (i.e., a matrix equation) that are sometimes also known as characteristic roots, characteristic values (Hoffman and Kunze 1971), proper values, or latent roots (Marcus and Minc 1988, p. 144).

The determination of the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a system is extremely important in physics and engineering, where it is equivalent to matrix diagonalization and arises in such common applications as stability analysis, the physics of rotating bodies, and small oscillations of vibrating systems, to name only a few. Each eigenvalue is paired with a corresponding so-called eigenvector (or, in general, a corresponding right eigenvector and a corresponding left eigenvector; there is no analogous distinction between left and right for eigenvalues).

end quote

[MAAT]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you gay?
Read on, let me show you that you are not thinking straight.
<quoted text>
See?
Is that logical?
Is that intellectually honest?
Is that fair thinking?
Its not that we are not saying the same things: you only reject what I am saying for the simple fact that it relates to God.
THE FACT IS THAT EFFICIENCY DEMONSTRATES INTELLIGENCE.
And whenever you deny that; then nothing you will ever say or do or think will ever demonstrate that you are intelligent NO MATTER HOW EFFECTIVELY YOU DO THOSE THINGS.
Thats the sh!t hole you evos keep falling into. By denying the existence of God, you will eventually deny your humanity.
<quoted text>
Where have I stated that "it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works."?
<quoted text>
Wasnt that always my argument?
Efficiency does matter; but my argument is that this efficiency is not inherent in the subject(s), but is induced or caused by an agent.
<quoted text>
If efficiency is not evidence of intelligence; then your most effective efforts will never be able to demonstrate your intelligence.
So what you end up with is Harvard and the rest, full of creative dunces.
Einstein and the rest demonstrated no intelligence; because the efficiency of the concepts that they formulated does not demonstrate intelligence.
Indeed, one fool makes many.
<quoted text>
I dont have to have an issue with anything. The Concept of God, can embrace all ideas and types of thought.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
MY claim?
"The study of the origin of life on Earth or, more specifically, how life on Earth began from inanimate matter, is technically known as abiogenesis..." [http://www.physicsoftheuniver se.com/topics_life.html]
You dont even know anything about science, do you?
<quoted text>
Right.
And anything that you are not "able to point out how that's done in an objective manner via the scientific method", is false and unscientific?
So WHATEVER is not testable or demonstrable by scientific method is non-existent and false and not true nor real; even though "reality" by definition, "includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible" (wikipedia.com )?
Got it.
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!
<quoted text>
You would love to be able to reduce God to a metaphor wouldnt you?
LOL!!!!

I don't care is his name is DE or HB or GH, it's from Kingston and on this forum bound to always get definitions wrong, or taken out of context, misunderstand and twist and then 'the wrong' is persisted in and used to project some daft prejudice.
Adding more 'wrong'.

I simply reach the point of concluding that nothing works against this kind of daft.
It can't be argued with, because it simply can't keep on track.
As in use the proper definion. And that would be the first requisite for a discussion.

[MAAT]

And i do advise innocent bystanders to track back to the actual post. Of The Dude and God Himself.
In one-sided quotes it might even make sense.
But reading the conversation you know that a straitjacket is needed.

As in no one else is laughing or thinking that we have read a smart piece of sensible science-based, logical conclusions from God Himself!

That's thus a big red flag!

[MAAT]

GH
Read on, let me show you that you are not thinking straight.
The Dude wrote:
..."Efficiency" does not mean "it works". It means it works...
GH: See?
----
Terminating a sentence instead of representing the entire line of reasoning it is inherent too, does not proof you are right.
It is called intellectual dishonesty. Misrepresenting the arguement of the opponent, never works.
----
GH: And whenever you deny that; then nothing you will ever say or do or think will ever demonstrate that you are intelligent NO MATTER HOW EFFECTIVELY YOU DO THOSE THINGS.**

The Dude wrote:
. Yet above you just stated it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works.

GH:** Where have I stated that "it matters not whether it's efficient or not, just as long as it works."?
---
Well effective and efficient are nye to no difference. Which you admit by pointed out later on.^^*
-----
The Dude wrote:
Now you're back to saying efficiency is what matters.
GH:^^* and **Wasnt that always my argument?

GH: Efficiency does matter; but my argument is that this efficiency is not inherent in the subject(s), but is induced or caused by an agent.

The Dude wrote:
I claim neither are relevant as evidence of intelligence as they are merely being used as weasel-words in order to avoid directly explaining the mechanisms responsible.

GH:^^*n and ** If efficiency is not evidence of intelligence; then your most effective efforts will never be able to demonstrate your intelligence.
----
You defined effective as intelligence.
Effective effort equals thus intelligent efforts.
Efficiency is not inherent in the subject.
You startd with stating that it does not matter how effective you do things it will never show intelligence.

[MAAT]

You defined effective as intelligence.
Effective effort equals thus intelligent efforts.
Efficiency is not inherent in the subject.
You started with stating that it does not matter how effective you do things it will never show intelligence.

So if GH writes:
GH:^^*n and ** If efficiency is not evidence of intelligence; then your most effective efforts will never be able to demonstrate your intelligence.

We all read, by using his own definitions:
A subject has no intelligence,
but if intelligence is not evidence of intelligence: then your- the subject that has no intelligence- most intelligent efforts will never be able to demonstrate your-the subject that has no intelligence- intelligence.

S NO A
A=A
S NO A, NO A, S NO A, thus NO A.

Well i've never come upon such a perfect sample of nonsense, logical fallacies and gobbledegook before.

BUT if they DO GOD, THEN THEY are suddenly, unexplainably intelligent!

B=A=S

Without explaining where B comes from, or how the process would work.
And we seen that before in history, the perfect god made human being: intellectually challenged people where thought to be of the devil.
Or weak and needed culling.

GH paraphrased.:Evo's do not do induced intelligence, named as god, but do go to Harvard.

This last sentence is a check to see if GH indeed intented to blame all unintelligence on unbelieve in god.

[MAAT]

And if we would also take effort to mean work...
And what God Himself said about that, we get the devils cauldron hosted by God Himself.

[MAAT]

5385

God Himself wrote:
I ASSERT THAT:
The primary and fundamental attribute/characteristic of intelligence is efficiency; It makes things work.
----
God Himself then concluded for no apparent reson from the above statement and directly following it:
In essence I am saying "If it works, it is influenced by intelligence."

[MAAT]

Now for easy comprehension, let's suppose H=ít makes things work.
S=subject without A
A=intelligence

S NO A
A=A
S NO A, NO A, S NO A, thus NO A.

Add B=god:

B=A=S=H

Therefore: God equals intelligence IS a subject with no intelligence makes things work.

Ergo: A subject with no god makes things work.

;P

[MAAT]

Those fundies in all their stupidity are ten times worse then your average atheist.

They have god burned, cooked and roasted without even blinking.
It's like being innocent and having the worst defence ever, and ending on deathrow!

[MAAT]

God Himself now wants to take the place of the replacement-god they allready had in place.
A real god-killer!
Reminds me of:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Chimney1]

MAAT wrote:

Well i've never come upon such a perfect sample of nonsense, logical fallacies and gobbledegook before.

Perhaps you have not been here long enough.

Nice dissection. I would stick to the simpler fact that evolution is effective but is not at all efficient, and these two things are not the same at all!

[LowellGuy]

God Himself wrote:

<quoted text>
You die and decay;
The thing which caused life keeps causing life;
Yet you are more efficient than whatever caused life to be?
LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!

Is gravity caused by rotation? There's some "original science" I think you ought to read...

[MAAT]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps you have not been here long enough.
Nice dissection. I would stick to the simpler fact that evolution is effective but is not at all efficient, and these two things are not the same at all!

As The Dude also pointed out here (in several threads i has allready been dicussed)
You made it nice and short as usual.

But the likes of GH's tend to go on.
So it's best to also harp back.

Has really weird ideas. Gay seems to also be on a par with superior logic and intelligence and evo and maybe harvard people too.
But it is frankly another example of the alien mind we encounter here.
He might as well have asked: Are you living near a clean sea?
Or: Have you or are you raped lately?
But nooo,zero in on gay!

Therefore i found B-A-S-H quite apt.

[MAAT]

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Is gravity caused by rotation? There's some "original science" I think you ought to read...

We'll even introduce you as that intelligent chap that can really make a contribution.

[marksman11]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
No evolutionist has EVER distinctly said we did not evolve from apes, unless YOU misunderstood. The link to apes has existed since Darwin (actually, since before Darwin).
Some people have had to emphasize that we did not evolve from MODERN ape species, usually when trying to explain to people who ask the question "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".
The co-ancestor of modern chimps, bonobos, and humans was itself a species of ape. Apes have been around for at least 25 million years, but the modern ape species have not.
To answer that silly question in full - yes, apes all evolved from a species of monkey (and thus so did the ape that became a hominid). There are still monkeys too, but all modern species have been evolving as well in the 25 million years since an ancient species of monkeys gave rise to apes.
And monkeys evolved from earlier primates and there are still examples around more like those too, from the lemur to the tarsier etc. But monkeys did not evolve from a modern species of lemur. Lemurs have continued to change too.
Evolution works by this branching, but development continues along all branches. Even the least changed branches, the so called living fossils, are not exactly the same as their ancient counterparts.
There, that wasn't hard, was it? No more confusion on this point, please.

With all due respect to you, there is something wrong here. Look at it from my view. Why even state that we and apes have a common ancestor, if that ancestor is also an ape? Why not just say, apes are our ancestors? There was a direct change in evolutionary claims a while back where evolutionists had to change their story. It was changed from "apes are our ancestors" to,"No, apes and humans share a common ancestor". So now we are back to "Apes are our ancestors again". I'm just really skeptical, but in my opinion, this gives me reason to be. Don't worry about giving a long reply. It really isn't that big a deal. It's just to me, it doesn't make sense.