Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Have powerful waves of confusion swept"No, you did not. You asked this"
"How is a god a liar?"
You said that they claim god a liar.
I first asked how is a god a liar?
Btw... In my second reply with "How is god a liar is the same question I just forgot the "is" in red
But you do you
If you cannot own up to your error then there is no point in explaining to you.."No, you did not. You asked this"
"How is a god a liar?"
You said that they claim god a liar.
I first asked how is a god a liar?
Btw... In my second reply with "How is god a liar is the same question I just forgot the "is" in red
But you do you
Sometimes you pay the price for misusing the ignore function.
Adaptation is change to more optimally exploit a situation, and can occur over very long periods of time.
I think I did - ring species. You still haven't tried to rebut that argument, so, unsurprisingly, I still consider it a correct answer. If I considered it correct then, why wouldn't I now still? I've explained what can change my mind and what can't. Only rebuttal, which is a very specific type of argument - one that falsifies a claim. Merely disagreeing and explaining what you believe instead accomplishes nothing. You'd need to give me a reason to think I'm wrong, and only a sound, falsifying argument can do that. Nothing else. Please look at that again: NOTHING ELSE. If your purpose is only to share your ideas, then you don't need to worry about how they're received. But if your purpose is to change critically thinking minds, you'll need to learn what can and what cannot do that.
Because that true. There was no human being born that didn't have human parents. But this opens the door to the sorites paradox that occurs with gradual transformations from one thing to another. There was no first human being, yet human beings didn't exist ten million years ago but do now.
No. That's a semantic quibble based in my not specifying being fertile.
So you claim.
No, based on their fecundity. Surviving isn't enough, which is why I call survival of the fittest an unfortunate choice of language. Proliferation of the most fecund is more descriptive.
So you say. You know the drill. Demonstrate the circularity if you can, and if you're correct, you can. If you're wrong, you can't.
Darwin claimed they evolve.
Do you mean naturally gentle, or tamed by man? Darwin's theory only addresses the former. Either way, nothing about wolves contradicts Darwin. If you want to do more than tell others your opinion, you need to do more than merely state it.
Did I claim that? What I said was that niche is not part of the concept of species, and I gave the ring species example how speciation can occur in a niche. I assume that you didn't accept that argument, but since you didn't falsify it, it remains my position. You can't make progress without dialectic, and it's not dialectic without rebuttal/counterargument/falsification (synonyms in this context). Separate lions in a single niche into two populations unable to interbreed, and eventually, you will two species of lion.
The misunderstanding of basic science and biology seems to be driving this fixation on niche stability. The expectation of an increased rate of speciation in a stable niche where there is no strong selection doesn't appear to be a rational conclusion. Speciation could occur through other mechanisms like drift and migration, but it would be very slow change. Coelacanths for instance exist in very stable niches and, while not the same species as their ancestors, retain all the characters that define their ancestral group. In comparison, the cichild fauna of Lake Victoria in Africa did not exist 15,000 years ago. The lake didn't exist then. In that brief time some of the most rapid step-wise evolution known has occurred and not just with the genesis of new species, but new genera as well. The formation of the lake opened numerous niches in which a small starter population was able to evolve to fill in short order.
Sometimes it means you address points made by the ignored through others as intermediaries. But you also don't have to see what amounts to someone yipping at your heals trying to get your attention for some ancient, perceived slight that never happened.
Then you're using it wrong. No living individual animal, plant or fungus adapts, only species do, and that takes time. Even humans don't "adapt" in the sense you are trying to use it. Yes, we can build a house and a fire and survive the cold, but failing that, our bodies will not long survive cold. You see this all the time -- homeless people, unable to afford shelter, or unwilling (for whatever reason) to accept it, die in the cold all the time.
You has said, "Adaptation is sudden just like every single thing that affects life at every level." Whenever you have a private definition of a word, we have a misunderstanding. The standard definition of the word doesn't imply suddenness.
Evolution occurs daily.
Evolution can only proceed in small steps. That's the basis of the argument that irreducible complexity argues for an intelligent designer. The ID investigators hoped to identify leaps too great for natural selection applied to natural genetic variation to accomplish, leaps where no intermediate form conferred an advantage that could be selected for naturally. They were thwarted by showing that small changes could do that.
We do.
I suspect a private understanding of rebuttal here. I told you what is required to call an argument a rebuttal. Mere dissent is not enough. Offering what you do believe instead is not enough. To be rebuttal, there must be falsification - disproof. There needs to be a counterargument that identifies and demonstrates an error - falsification. No, I never saw that despite reading every word you have written to me.
That's an odd comment. What should it be instead?
No, I don't believe I can estimate that.
It's not an assumption. It's a definition. Fitness in this context is proportional to fecundity.
That was successfully rebutted, falsified. Darwing said the opposite. He said they change over time. Can you see how that kind of dissent differs from merely saying that I disagree and giving opinions that don't make yours wrong even if correct themselves? I directly contradicted your claim in a way that we can't both be correct. This is how dialectic helps resolve differences in opinion.
I'm sure the history of dogs is available on the Internet.
No he developed a theory about how LIFE CHANGRS.
The problem here is that it can be difficult to know what you intend when you use private definitions of words without being clear what YOU mean when you use the word.
Here's a good example. You must have a private definition of one or both of these words to equate them, since in common usage, these words refer to different things. For example, I just awakened from a nap. Consciousness disappeared for me while sleeping, but I remained just as alive asleep as when awake.
I don't define adaptation that way, and you probably shouldn't put quotations around words you attribute to others that you didn't copy verbatim. Here's the definition I provided (verbatim): "Adaptation is change to more optimally exploit a situation, and can occur over very long periods of time." Survival of the fittest wasn't part of that definition. You inserted it. Developing calluses due to learning a stringed instrument or wearing ill-fitting shoes is an adaptation that is neither sudden nor related to survival of the fittest.
That was in response to, "Evolution occurs daily." Are you confusing evolution and speciation? A human couple had a child today, and the human gene pool evolved slightly with the addition of a new genome. If there was a mutation in one of the parental germ cells, then there may be a new allele in that gene pool. That's evolution, and both parents and child are human. The ideas aren't contradictory.
And what shall we call the process whereby the individuals who are different and survive because of that difference begin to accumulate in a population over a few generations?
It's a definition, which is not an argument and therefore cannot contain a (circularity) fallacy. It's a common misunderstanding. We see it in a common criticism of evolution that survival of the fittest is a circular argument - "It's fit because it survives and it survives because it's fit." But that's not an argument, just a definition. The argument is that natural selection applied to genetic variation in population across generations leads to biological evolution (evolving gene pools).
That isn't the word I was referring to. It was your private definition of adaptation. And I've never seen your definition of metaphysical. I asked you what metaphysical language was once, but your answer didn't clarify it for me.
I've never seen your definition anywhere else but from you, which is why I called it private.
Get over what? You had said, "If you refuse to parse a sentence the way the author intended you are playing word games" in response to a request that and I responded "The problem here is that it can be difficult to know what you intend when you use private definitions of words without being clear what YOU mean when you use the word." Do you disagree or resent the comment?
