Darwin's Illusion

[metis]

Have a great weekend!

You too, my friend.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your rebuttal was full of mistakes and logical falacies.

Sure it was.

Speaking of mistakes, you misspelled fallacies.

Posting that comment was a tactical error. Reading it was like hearing a blind man telling me I need a haircut. You'll need to get your ducks in a row before making comments like that. How would you know if I made mistakes?

What is your purpose in these threads, Leroy? What are you hoping to accomplish? Is it just human interaction you desire? You don't seem to be interested in learning, and you can probably see that nobody is being taught by you. You don't seem to care how you are perceived, which is a mistake. Some will say that the don't care about such things, but if they want their opinions seriously considered, they should. I've describes ethos in the realm of the philosophy of argumentation (rhetoric).

It's the metamessage a writer or speaker sends along with the text of his message (logos). Does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like.

Even if you don't care about such things, your audience will.

 

[John53]

Debate means that some are right and anyone that disagrees with them are wrong. Period. Fruit flies are the proof. Oh, no proof. Fruit flies become something else but no validation of that, only maybe conjecture.

Show us your proof to explain the diversity of life. I keep asking, you keep avoiding.

 

[YoursTrue]

My last post before leaving.

There is no way to anticipate if a mutation will ever become a phenotype nor whether it will or will not enhance survivability.

Not saying long or short armed groups of humans are mutations, but yes -- once again -- fruit flies remain fruit flies so far, and humans remain humans. so far as has been observed, you might say. Of course the argument might come across that there isn't enough 'time' to observe distinct changes, like maybe fruit flies becoming -- um -- a gnat? oh no, gnats already exist. but you never know, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Show us your proof to explain the diversity of life. I keep asking, you keep avoiding.?

The proof is all around you -- here we go again -- humans remain humans, fruit flies remain fruit flies, so far. Show me something else, ok?

 

[YoursTrue]

And we see the return of the flawed argument that does not realize that she is still an ape and that all of her children will be apes.

You are only confirming the theory of evolution with this argument. That is what the theory tells us.

sorry, fellow(s), but gorillas aren't morphing, unless of course you say they are. And that "Unknown Common ancestor" just hasn't been discovered yet, lol.

 

[leroy]

Why not? You appear to be now making the mistake of assuming a goal to evolution. There is no goal. It only needs to improve any gene somehow and it would lead to an improvement. @metis told you of his experience. I am sure that if you did a proper search of Google Scholar that you would find all sorts of articles on that sort of improvement. In other words it is hypothesized and observed. Sounds pretty solid to me.

LOL!! No, no, so close. I refuted the argument. I wish that I could say that you made an honest attempt to understand it, but that does not seem to be the case. Reality, actual observed experiments, demonstrate that you are wrong.

Reality, actual observed experiments, demonstrate that you are wrong.

Well then quote any experiment or article that shows that I am wrong......... please quote the exact words of the article

 

[leroy]

You need to be able to point them out and explain how they are mistakes and fallacies. I doubt if you can do that.

I already did that

 

[Subduction Zone]

sorry, fellow(s), but gorillas aren't morphing, unless of course you say they are. And that "Unknown Common ancestor" just hasn't been discovered yet, lol.

Nothing "morphs" in your sense in evolution. You seem to have a very flawed concept of evolution. Changes are rather small. Think of a walking across your country from one border to another. From space your progress as being observed by someone in orbit would not look as if there was any change. But you yourself could see neighborhoods change as you walked. Given enough time you could go from border to border.

And we can measure how likely mutations are. We know that there are on the order of one hundred mutations per generation. That is not very much, but those do add up over time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already did that

You didn't in the post that I responded to. And that would have been a first if you did.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well then quote any experiment or article that shows that I am wrong......... please quote the exact words of the article

No, we have played your game too long. If I feel like it I might volunteer something, but until you change your debating tactics you do not get to make demands. Or you could always try to come up with a way for you to "pay" for the information that you demand.

 

[leroy]

Sure it was.

Speaking of mistakes, you misspelled fallacies.

Well that shows that you do quote and explain mistakes when you see them

So your previous justifications for not quoting previous alleged mistakes and fallacies where just excuses, because you didn't really found any mistakes.

What is your purpose in these threads, Leroy? What are you hoping to accomplish?

I used the same dishonest tactic that you used with the intent and the hope that you can see how dishonest that looks.

It is inapropiate to accuse others for making mistakes or fallacies without quoting the alleged mistake and explain why is it wrong.


It is inapropiate when you do it and it is inapropiate when I do it.

 

[leroy]

You didn't in the post that I responded to. And that would have been a first if you did.

Yes I did go back and look..... I will not do your job.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I did go back and look..... I will not do your job.

In the post that I quoted you only made claims.

 

[John53]

The proof is all around you -- here we go again -- humans remain humans, fruit flies remain fruit flies, so far. Show me something else, ok?

Great. That doesn't tell me how it happened and if it's all around me you should be able to list a few examples and what the proof is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I went back to the post, against my better judgment, and found of course that I was right and that @leroy was wrong, again. I stated that he only made claims and that he did not refute @It Aint Necessarily So at all. Here is a link to his post:

Darwin's Illusion

You are accusing @LIIA for making mistakes and you are not even willing to quote such mistakes Why should anybody have to go back and find anything for you, Leroy? I just rebutted LIIA as well. Did you see the post? Did you understand what you read? If so, you can make your own list of what I...

www.religiousforums.com

If you want to save time this is the full text of @leroy 's reply:

"Your rebuttal was full of mistakes and logical falacies."

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I did go back and look..... I will not do your job.

Oh, you fooled me. I went back and looked. I was right. You only made an unsupported claim. Why am I not surprised at all. Sorry, now you can no longer claim that others are not doing their job. You keep making things worse for you:

See above post for details.

 

[YoursTrue]

Great. That doesn't tell me how it happened and if it's all around me you should be able to list a few examples and what the proof is.

What do you mean, fruit flies become something other than fruit flies?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean, fruit flies become something other than fruit flies?

Nope, just as you are still an ape, their offspring will still be fruit flies.

 

[John53]

What do you mean, fruit flies become something other than fruit flies?

Bad memory? I want to hear your explanation for the diversity of life on earth along with the proof.