Evidence for Evolution: resources

[Phronesis]

Funny how you say comprehension and logic are not the strong points of others when you ask dumb questions, fail to answer questions posed to you (and no, until you actually answer anything, don't expect anything from me) and assert reductionism can detect agency.
I mean, you still have not shown to have any comprehension related to FLE, evolution in general, reductionism, agency etc., then ask these questions as if to imply you do. You are a joke, now sod off.

 

[Phronesis]

More evolution...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt-NvcuDVBc[/ame]

 

[rwenzori]

Just answer alloy's questions Phroners - what do you have to hide? No need to be rude, on this the lord's day.

 

[Phronesis]

ROFL, how dumb will it be to ask:

1. Do you favor architectural modeling? (Yes/No)

2. If yes, does your version of architectural modeling have an architectural modeler? (Yes/No)

Do you mind telling alloytoo how reductionism can detect agency eek as well, he seems a bit stuck on the concept there. I donno, maybe his comprehension is not so great afterall. I think you two are on the same level, you should understand each other at least.

 

[rwenzori]

Do you mind telling alloytoo how reductionism can detect agency eek as well, he seems a bit stuck on the concept there. I donno, maybe his comprehension is not so great afterall.

Akshully ( to use the LolSpeak term ) we don't accept your terms, nor your straw men.

But, alloy, I assume Phroners' convoluted and obscure response means:

1. Do you favour FLE (Front Loaded Evolution)? (Yes/No)

Yes

2. If yes, does your version of FLE have a front loader? (Yes/No)

Yes, though he seems too apprehensive of our communal scorn to mention the J-person.

 

[Phronesis]

Akshully ( to use the LolSpeak term ) we don't accept your terms, nor your straw men.

Well... you are welcome to explain to ANY person (but please, allotytoo needs it most) how reductionism can detect ANYTHING for that matter, nevermind agency.

 

[rwenzori]

Well... you are welcome to explain to ANY person how reductionism can detect ANYTHING for that matter, nevermind agency.

Well, I reduced your comment down to the fact that it is just past 10h00 Sunday morning and you have been posting away since earlier. Detect...detect... . This leads me to ask why the hell you aren't in church, praisin' de load an all? You a backslider?? Norty boy LOL!

 

[Phronesis]

Yep, you and alloytoo are on the same level... go detect something with reductionism and explain to alloytoo the materials, methods and results. Should be one fascinating conversation.

 

[alloytoo]

Funny how you say comprehension and logic are not the strong points of others when you ask dumb questions, fail to answer questions posed to you (and no, until you actually answer anything, don't expect anything from me) and assert reductionism can detect agency.
I mean, you still have not shown to have any comprehension related to FLE, evolution in general, reductionism, agency etc., then ask these questions as if to imply you do. You are a joke, now sod off.

I'm merely trying to ensure that I don't misrepresent your position.

We're not discussing reductionism, and only agency in the context of FLE.

1. Do you favour FLE (Front Loaded Evolution)? (Yes/No)

2. If yes, does your version of FLE have a front loader? (Yes/No)

I've tried to reduct these questions as much I can.

 

[alloytoo]

Well... you are welcome to explain to ANY person (but please, allotytoo needs it most) how reductionism can detect ANYTHING for that matter, nevermind agency.

Tsk tsk, you really need to see someone about your Bi-Polar behavior.

If your answers were affirmative as your duck and dodge suggest (Which seems strangely at odds with the number of instances you rudely insisted that FLE has nothing to do with a "prime architect".)

Now could you please provide evidence of your "architectural modeller"

 

[Phronesis]

I'm merely trying to ensure that I don't misrepresent your position.

Nevermind "misrepresent"... try comprehension.

Your questions are about as intelligent as the following ones:

1. Do you favor architectural modeling? (Yes/No)

2. If yes, does your version of architectural modeling have an architectural modeler? (Yes/No)

I have no clue what architectural modeling exactly is, but heck, I ask it because well, it sounds so stupid.

Go detect something with reductionism somewhere else. Take rwenzori with you, I am sure you two will have a ball...

 

[CyraxHB]

So basically, because people can't explain where we came from we think there must be a god who created us.

But have we not now just created a more complex problem?. So who created god? Does god also have a god who created him?

 

[Phronesis]

Bonus points for failing philosophy class 101 for asking such a Dawkins-like question. Bravo, bravo.
Dawkins and co: asking philosophically vacuous questions since....forever.

And no, the argument from reason is not an argument from ignorance .

 

[CyraxHB]

Bonus points for failing philosophy class 101 for asking such a Dawkins-like question. Bravo, bravo.
Dawkins and co: asking philosophically vacuous questions since....forever.

And no, the argument from reason is not an argument from ignorance .

Note the lack of an answer.

 

[Phronesis]

Note the total lack of understanding the incoherency of the question.

 

[CyraxHB]

Note the total lack of understanding the incoherency of the question.

Not incoherent. Quite simple actually.

Who created god?

 

[alloytoo]

Akshully ( to use the LolSpeak term ) we don't accept your terms, nor your straw men.

But, alloy, I assume Phroners' convoluted and obscure response means:



Yes



Yes, though he seems too apprehensive of our communal scorn to mention the J-person.

I do too, I would hate to misrepresent anyone which is why I desire clarity.

His answers seem strangely at odds with his previous posts on this issue.

I've certainly in the past avoided the J-Person, and rather used terms like Prime Cause/mover/Loader etc in the context of FLE, and Prhony has readily shot me down for suggesting such a thing.

In the context of reductionism I merely want proof that "x" exists before we condemn any methodology for a failure to detect it.

Perhaps you could explain how any methodology can detect something which does not exist? I confess I'm at a loss in this regard.

 

[Phronesis]

Not incoherent. Quite simple actually.

Who created god?

You obviously have no clue how to differentiate between contingent and necessary causes.

In the context of reductionism I merely want proof that "x" exists before we condemn any methodology for a failure to detect it.

Perhaps you could explain how any methodology can detect something which does not exist? I confess I'm at a loss in this regard.

Well if you decide to look for something (using any methodology, including reductionism ) you believe does not exist, I think you should go for a brain scan because that is just insanely stupid and crazy.

So alloytoo, have you detected ANYTHING using reductionism? I think the whole world is waiting for your results...

Person X is looking to detect something he thinks does not exist. Using reductionsm...
Person X is sane, rational, logical and coherent.

Ten Rand for the person who detects the oxymoron using reductionism .

 

[Smooth Criminal]

You obviously have no clue how to differentiate between contingent and necessary causes.

That's still not an answer to his question. Stop dwelling on your perceived view that his reasoning is flawed - pretend that he's ignorant - what's the answer to his question?

 

[CyraxHB]

You obviously have no clue how to differentiate between contingent and necessary causes.

After dodging the question 3 times, Ill take it you haven't got the slightest clue.

Thats typical of religious people. They refuse to believe that life could have evolved by itself but then want us to believe that god just came into existence by himself.

Thats a bit hypocritical dont you think.