A Disproof of Evolution Disprovers

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You seem to be struggling with the whole concept of gradual change. A person who is 90 years old is definitely elderly, when they were 30 years old they definitely weren't. Therefore, according your 'logic', there must have been one second in one minute of one hour of one day at which said person became elderly. Sure, you can just pick one arbitrarily but it makes no difference to the fact that the person was, for all practical purposes, the same before and after.

[edited for typos]

Excellent example! I wish that I had thought of it -- but you beat us all to the punch.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Why do you think that there had to be a "first"? If you want to make that claim you take on the burden of defining a first and then defending that belief. It cannot be done.

Now with very simple life there may be a possibility. Since in those cases a single mutation can make a big difference. With complex life that is just not the case.

In fact if you see a collection of specific traits as being the animal that was the first kangaroo even then your claim would fail.

For any specific set of genes there was one individual that had those traits Unfortunately it is all but guaranteed that no one offspring had all of those same traits. In other words you would have a kangaroo being the parent of a non-kangaroo.

The only accurate way to state it is that there is a population that became kangaroos.

I think you are starting to see my point. You say "there was one individual that had those traits". And that is ALL I am saying. I do not care about parents or offspring or populations. "There was one individual" - your words.That would be the first living thing that "had all those traits". See how easy that was? Now maybe some of the other blockheads will start to see it.But I will mark you down as the first to agree with me that there was a FIRST individual that hadd those traits. I call it the first kangaroo. You can call it the first indivual but they are the same.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you are starting to see my point. You say "there was one individual that had those traits". And that is ALL I am saying. I do not care about parents or offspring or populations. "There was one individual" - your words.That would be the first living thing that "had all those traits". See how easy that was? Now maybe some of the other blockheads will start to see it.But I will mark you down as the first to agree with me that there was a FIRST individual that hadd those traits. I call it the first kangaroo. You can call it the first indivual but they are the same.

And you missed the point. If you had a set of traits that defined what a kangaroo is do you understand that its progeny would not be "kangaroos" by that poor definition? You want a self refuting definition of "kangaroo". No scientist would be so foolish as to make that mistake.

You are mistaking the word for the concept. They are not one and the same:

 

[ecco]

And which god is that?

The one we've been discussing.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

And you missed the point. If you had a set of traits that defined what a kangaroo is do you understand that its progeny would not be "kangaroos" by that poor definition? You want a self refuting definition of "kangaroo". No scientist would be so foolish as to make that mistake.

You are mistaking the word for the concept. They are not one and the same:

I will not use MY definition, I will use science's definition. Surely science is smart enough to know what traits make a kangaroo. And there was that fiest individual that had those traits. I guess you are just covering your backside because you do not want the other posters to know you agrees with me. But it is too late. You already agrees that their was a first individual that had those traits. Now explain to the other posters why you agrees with me. Tag. You're it.

 

[ecco]

I am prepared to listen to your explanation of how there can be kangaroos today if there never was a first. You avoided the question because you have no answer. There was a day when there were no kangaroos and later there was a day when there were kangaroos. Somewhere in between there had to be the first one. Please give your best explanation of why this is not true. Now is your cahance to show how smart you are and how dumb I am.

You cannot agree evolution happened if you don't understand what evolution is or how it works. You have demonstrated - repeatedly- that you are completely ignorant of what evolution is or how it works.

You've been told - repeatedly- that you believe in a cartoonish strawman version of evolution, not Evolution.

Why this doesn't sink in is beyond comprehension.

I am prepared to listen to your explanation of how there can be kangaroos today if there never was a first. You avoided the question because you have no answer.

It is not my job to try to educate someone who chooses to remain willfully ignorant. If you read this and understand it, you will realize how silly your comments about a first kangaroo (or anything else) really are.

Now is your cahance to show how smart you are and how dumb I am.

It's not about smart or dumb. It's about knowledgeable and willfully ignorant.

 

[McBell]

The one we've been discussing.

Ah, so you just arbitrarily assign to me a god?
Is said god you arbitrarily assign to me aware of this assignment?

 

[Astrophile]

On day X there was no animal alive anywhere that any scientist would call a kangaroo. On day Y there was an animal that one scientist would call a kangaroo. That was the first animal that anyone would describe as a kangaroo.

How far apart were day X and day Y? What would you call the animals that were ancestral to kangaroos and that existed midway between day X and day Y?

 

[McBell]

I will not use MY definition, I will use science's definition.

Good idea.
What is it?
The definition I mean.

I mean, if it is the definition you are using, you should at least know it, right?

Surely science is smart enough to know what traits make a kangaroo.

I would think so.
Now all yu needs do is present it.

And there was that fiest individual that had those traits.

Perhaps after you present the scientific definition, we can get started on hunting down your "firstest ever" kangaroo...

I guess you are just covering your backside because you do not want the other posters to know you agrees with me.

Or more likely he has enough patience to keep trying to explain your error even though you appear dead set on not learning......?

But it is too late. You already agrees that their was a first individual that had those traits. Now explain to the other posters why you agrees with me. Tag. You're it.

I am more interested in why you are so against learning why your chosen bone to gnaw does not apply to evolution in the way you insist it does.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Good idea.
What is it?
The definition I mean.

I mean, if it is the definition you are using, you should at least know it, right?


I would think so.
Now all yu needs do is present it.


Perhaps after you present the scientific definition, we can get started on hunting down your "firstest ever" kangaroo...


Or more likely he has enough patience to keep trying to explain your error even though you appear dead set on not learning......?


I am more interested in why you are so against learning why your chosen bone to gnaw does not apply to evolution in the way you insist it does.

I am sure Subduction zone is a big boy. He does not need you to defend him. I used HIS words that there was a first animal that had all the traits needed. If you do not agree, tell him, not me.

 

[McBell]

I am sure Subduction zone is a big boy. He does not need you to defend him. I used HIS words that there was a first animal that had all the traits needed. If you do not agree, tell him, not me.

Why the back peddling all of a sudden?

I mean, YOU flat out said YOU were using the "scientific definition" of kangaroo.
Why is it you can not present this definition you claim you are using?

The way I see it, you either have no inkling as what your error is and refuse to learn, or you do know what your error is and are merely being contrary.
Neither of which leads to production intercourse.

However, Unlike me, Subduction Zone, for what ever reason, is STILL trying, to explain it to you.

And yet, here you are still chasing your own tail.

So are you ever going to present the definition YOU claim YOU are using?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Why the back peddling all of a sudden?

I mean, YOU flat out said YOU were using the "scientific definition" of kangaroo.
Why is it you can not present this definition you claim you are using?

The way I see it, you either have no inkling as what your error is and refuse to learn, or you do know what your error is and are merely being contrary.
Neither of which leads to production intercourse.

However, Unlike me, Subduction Zone, for what ever reason, is STILL trying, to explain it to you.

And yet, here you are still chasing your own tail.

So are you ever going to present the definition YOU claim YOU are using?

I will wait for subduction zone to explain to you what he meant when he said that an animal had all the traits needed. This discussion is between you and him.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will not use MY definition, I will use science's definition. Surely science is smart enough to know what traits make a kangaroo. And there was that fiest individual that had those traits. I guess you are just covering your backside because you do not want the other posters to know you agrees with me. But it is too late. You already agrees that their was a first individual that had those traits. Now explain to the other posters why you agrees with me. Tag. You're it.

Nope, not by the poor standards you are demanding. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will wait for subduction zone to explain to you what he meant when he said that an animal had all the traits needed. This discussion is between you and him.

I did not say "needed". That is your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am sure Subduction zone is a big boy. He does not need you to defend him. I used HIS words that there was a first animal that had all the traits needed. If you do not agree, tell him, not me.

Oh my!! I do not need any defending.

Your idea is flawed. It has been explained to you several times and yet you won't drop it.

You have not stated this, but you act as if "kangaroo" was a goal of evolution. It is not, it is only a result.

 

[McBell]

I will wait for subduction zone to explain to you what he meant when he said that an animal had all the traits needed. This discussion is between you and him.

I find it rather interesting that you do not know the definition you claim you are using.

I already understand the concept he is explaining to you.
That you do not understand it is on you.
Not him.
Not me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I find it rather interesting that you do not know the definition you claim you are using.

I already understand the concept he is explaining to you.
That you do not understand it is on you.
Not him.
Not me.

I do not think that he will ever understand. In fact the illustration that I posted probably confused him as well. And not just because it is in French.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I will not use MY definition, I will use science's definition. Surely science is smart enough to know what traits make a kangaroo. And there was that fiest individual that had those traits. I guess you are just covering your backside because you do not want the other posters to know you agrees with me. But it is too late. You already agrees that their was a first individual that had those traits. Now explain to the other posters why you agrees with me. Tag. You're it.

I have an idea: let's change the species and talk about "what traits make a human." You know, big brain, bipedal upright locomotion, 4 fingers and opposing thumb -- I'll let you carry on with that.

I just have one question for you, based on the few points I made above: Is this a human family? Why or why not?

 

[McBell]

I do not think that he will ever understand. In fact the illustration that I posted probably confused him as well. And not just because it is in French.

you can lead a horse to water....

 

[We Never Know]

you can lead a horse to water....

And it won't drink unless its thirsty