Time to clear the decks...

[Techne]

No, the result of x1-5 having died but the rest not is called natural selection.

Natural selection didn't cause anything, it didn't cause some to survive and others not to. It is simple cause (whatever cause you can think of, disease, old age, accident etc.) and effect (death). Natural selection is not a cause, it is merely a

Describing who survives. I meant no agency behind using 'sorting' just a descriptive term from an observers POV.

I didn't think you were and I agree, natural selection is just a descriptive term, it does not "sort" or "select" for anything.

 

[cyghost]

On another note though discovered this...

Then why not address it there?

Wow! Just wow! The ultimate admission of faith.

So you agree that faith is bad? hmmm interesting that.... been saying it for years myself.

And in stories written by other humans, imagine that. Then to top it off no originality at all. If they are wrong then no question as to why the "mountains" of evidence "proved" otherwise and no asking if they are really right the second time and didn't actually have it right the first time.

Not at all mate. Not at all, but I wouldn't expect you to understand any kind of clarification I would offer, not with the level of comprehension I have seen you display thus far, so I simply won't bother.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

There we go again with the "gravity is also a theory" mumbo jumbo. Gravity is not a theory, it's a fact or a law. The Newtonian Theory of Universal Gravity and General Relativity are theories that explain how gravity works and there are also at least two theories trying to explain why gravity works. Gosh you claim to know the difference between theories and facts yet fail to. Just like you fail to recognise your fallacious arguments that even people who believe in evolution point out. You probably also think that all theories are equal like string theory compared to your "theory" of gravity.

You obviously don't know the difference between gravity, and the theory of gravity. Just like you don't know the difference between evolution, and the theory of evolution. Until you do, please stop infecting the Natural Sciences section with your ignorance.

 

[alloytoo]

Because you ignore the fact of what the words mean. What you claim to be the fact of evolution is nothing more than mutation leading to some change. Well whoopee doo it's [-]light years[/-] miles away from proving that I'm an ape (the theory of evolution). What you do is swap the term evolution interchangeably for both which makes it perfectly okay for everybody else to do so as well. But you then turn around and use the fallacy of equivocation so you can refute your strawman. Seems we have a twofer when it comes to fallacies here. Don't pretend you don't know that you're doing it. We both know you are not some dumbass that doesn't know when someone is saying evolution is unproven/just/only a theory that there's a 99.9% certainty they are referring to the theory of evolution. Which means if you're doing it you're being completely disingenuous.

Pay attention. The first one is free:

Evolution is the observed phenomena of change (in life) over time. (observed for over 3000 years)

The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain the observed phenomena.

There is no equivocation, the distinction is very clear.

Oh, and you are an ape. That is just a fact.

Why is it different from the theory of evolution? Because the theory of gravity has smackloads more evidence to back its assertions up. Actual testable predictions. This again proves why analogies are bad at explaining things. In fact analogies are usually terrible at explaining things. But then we get to some thumbsucked tripe like string theory that has even less to back it up. I reject that not because it has any implication for God's existence but because I believe it's garbage. Why should the reason be any different for rejecting evolution?

So no particular reason then other than you feel iffy about it.

 

[Geriatrix]

Natural selection didn't cause anything, it didn't cause some to survive and others not to. It is simple cause (whatever cause you can think of, disease, old age, accident etc.) and effect (death). Natural selection is not a cause, it is merely a


I didn't think you were and I agree, natural selection is just a descriptive term, it does not "sort" or "select" for anything.

Sorry Techne, seems our discussion is being drowned out by the shouting, chest-pounding and branch-breaking of our fellow posters. Let's just scoot a chair up and enjoy the show. Was fun thought!

 

[_kabal_]

FTFY

careful, you will be told to piss on your own lawn, and then be reported for "fraud"

 

[Swa]

Well this just proves again why you don't argue with an idiot. In future his posts and all other personal attacks and insults will be reported. I don't care if anybody thinks I am ignorant, backwards, fundamentalist or all the other crap because like I said you can proclaim the sky is a blob of spit it does not make it fact. I don't have to prove myself to anybody and in fact if I did care he's been using enough fallacies after they were pointed out to him that he's lost any credibility he had to a disinterested person. If he chooses to keep on derailing this thread by dragging religion and his "superior" knowledge of science into it without even showing a basic understanding of it he can do that alone.

 

[RanzB]

Well this just proves again why you don't argue with an idiot.

Is that a fact or a theory?

 

[Swa]

It has the word evolution in it sure but it is not the same thing as biological evolution. They are two entirely separate scientific disciplines with entirely separate theories explaining the observations.

Otherwise we could start including technological evolution and the evolution of language in this discussion and that would just be silly.

Just because something has the word "evolution" in it doesn't mean it is closely associated with things like evolutionary biology. Which, using the context, you should have easily been able to determine was the topic of discussion.

Exactly. Now you get the point. There are a myriad of different kinds of evolutions so to assume technological evolution when the theory of evolution is discussed would be foolish. Using the context of an evolution discussion it's the theory of evolution in dispute so to [-]pretend[/-] assume it's evolution is [-]disingenuous[/-] foolish.

You are an unpleasant little ****, reading through your posts, I'd advise you to tone down the attitude, and the insults.

Your own behaviour towards Techne is anything but a shining example of civility and even worse as it was unprovoked. Take the log out of... ah never mind.

If this is what you think is the extent of the observable evidence behind these theories then I have to say that while I don't like calling people ignorant the claims of your ignorance are not an exaggeration friend.

And yet you can't say what you disagree with. You don't make any sense.

Then why not address it there?

Seems I'm not allowed to.

So you agree that faith is bad? hmmm interesting that.... been saying it for years myself.

Most of what anyone believes is based on faith. I never claimed faith is bad... but you do. :erm: Blind faith on the other hand.

Not at all mate. Not at all, but I wouldn't expect you to understand any kind of clarification I would offer, not with the level of comprehension I have seen you display thus far, so I simply won't bother.

Yeah don't bother. There is no defense for your admission.

Evolution is the observed phenomena of change (in life) over time. (observed for over 3000 years)

The Theory of Evolution seeks to explain the observed phenomena.

What I said so what do you disagree with?

There is no equivocation, the distinction is very clear.

Indeed the distinction is very clear so confusing the two is equivocation. Actually read what people like me and Techne provide instead of just dismissing it like you people continually claim creationists do.

careful, you will be told to piss on your own lawn, and then be reported for "fraud"

Correcting a spelling mistake is very different from changing what someone said and misrepresenting their position. It's legally fraud! Your post has also been reported.

 

[Swa]

Not at all mate. Not at all, but I wouldn't expect you to understand any kind of clarification I would offer, not with the level of comprehension I have seen you display thus far, so I simply won't bother.

Comprehension? Nobody has bothered giving anything to comprehend and just as is usual in these discussions just trolled the thread off topic with the snide remarks and dragging religion into it. Wonderful way to debate and I must say Ancalagon has also shown some marvelous comprehension skills.

 

[alloytoo]

What I said so what do you disagree with?

Not actually what you said, indeed when I queried it you, you went blathering on about equivocation.

Indeed the distinction is very clear so confusing the two is equivocation.

Bravo, you're learnt how to state the obvious, but not necessarily the facts.

Actually read what people like me and Techne provide instead of just dismissing it like you people continually claim creationists do.

I didn't dismiss your post, addressed your word salad by clarifying my position eliminating any posibility of equivocation.

I also corrected you on a factual inaccuracy, you are indeed an ape.

I didn't address anything or dismiss anything with Techne, nor did I raise creationism or creationists, why do you raise this issue?

Correcting a spelling mistake is very different from changing what someone said and misrepresenting their position. It's legally fraud! Your post has also been reported.

No it's not legally fraud.

It's considered fair use (The original was referenced and unchanged) and the edit was to illustrate a point.

 

[RanzB]

Correcting a spelling mistake is very different from changing what someone said and misrepresenting their position. It's legally fraud! Your post has also been reported.

I will be advising _kabal_ to use the Chewbacca defence.

 

[cyghost]

Seems I'm not allowed to.

I'd rather your type post in PD than sully Natural Science to be perfectly candid...

I never claimed faith is bad...

Yeah don't bother. There is no defense for your admission.

Why should there be a defense for my "admission" if you don't think it is bad?? I sense a contradiction here.

I have "faith" in experts in various fields knowing what they are on about. I have this "faith" because they produce results and they check up on each other rigorously and jealously. With cross checks from other fields. A whole network of balances and counter balances. I fail to see why this "admission" is such a shock to you.

 

[Techne]

Sorry Techne, seems our discussion is being drowned out by the shouting, chest-pounding and branch-breaking of our fellow posters. Let's just scoot a chair up and enjoy the show. Was fun thought!

Sucks doesn't it. Was fun anyway and you got to kill some time .

 

[Geriatrix]

Sucks doesn't it. Was fun anyway and you got to kill some time .

That's why we good citizens came to the Colosseum, isn't it?
I think we should append an -uis to all the posters names from now on. All good gladiators had Roman names.

 

[porchrat]

And yet you can't say what you disagree with. You don't make any sense.

I think you have put the wrong response with the wrong quote here. Perhaps reread what I have said (that mere mutations leading to small changes over time are not the only observable evidence present) and then come back and answer again yea?

 

[Techne]

That's why we good citizens came to the Colosseum, isn't it?
I think we should append an -uis to all the posters names from now on. All good gladiators had Roman names.

Hehe, Geriatrixus or Geriatrixeus or Geriatrixuis? Techneuis sounds better than Techneus. The latter sounds like I have a nose for tech...

 

[Geriatrix]

Hehe, Geriatrixus or Geriatrixeus or Geriatrixuis? Techneuis sounds better than Techneus. The latter sounds like I have a nose for tech...

Hmm, I would prefer to be Gerius, it's close to Gaius, so I'll be catching some shine from the first Caesar, which I'm sure we would all agree was the best one.
Your name could be the exception, just add another e and all should be fine, although you'll have to drop the h. Tecnee.

 

[Swa]

Bravo, you're learnt how to state the obvious, but not necessarily the facts.

So something is obvious but not a fact? That generally doesn't make sense.

I didn't dismiss your post, addressed your word salad by clarifying my position eliminating any posibility of equivocation.

You denied that there's equivocation. Let's not beat around the bush. Evolutionists continually harp on evangelically waving hands in the air that evolution is proven fact whenever the theory is disputed. That's nothing but a cheap strawman that doesn't disprove the original position and by invoking equivocation. If you don't do that then it's fine and if you were attempting to clarify this purposefully conducted confusion then I apologise but your denial that there's equivocation is contrary to the facts and tells me that wasn't what you were trying to do.

I didn't address anything or dismiss anything with Techne, nor did I raise creationism or creationists, why do you raise this issue?

It's not me that raises the issue. It's also not me that introduced religion. You're barking up the wrong tree.

No it's not legally fraud.

It's considered fair use (The original was referenced and unchanged) and the edit was to illustrate a point.

It references a misquote as if it were verbatim. That's fraud and defamation. So you agree then it was edited and not my original words. That's not making a point it's dishonest so he lied. And fair use refers to copyright. Find out your legal facts first before commenting on them.

 

[Archer]

Evolutionists continually harp on evangelically waving hands in the air that evolution is proven fact whenever the theory is disputed.

Do Evolutionists wave their hands in the same way that Gravitationists do when something is flawed, misunderstood or "we have no clue" with the theory of gravity?