Evolution My ToE

[nPeace]

1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

/E: Forgot to add this: Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

Actual reality: You're comparing evolution to cars.

What am I dealing with here?
Um... No.

 

[Darkstorn]

What am I dealing with here?
Um... No.

Your words, not mine:

I think natural selection needs to act, because it is proposed as the driver for evolution, and we can't have a mindless driver that doesn't just drive randomly.
Can you imagine a driver-less car with no AI? It's path would be random, not guided.

You were talking about evolution, and making a comparison to cars. Now you're claiming that this has nothing to do with evolution.

Then why are you talking about natural selection, and evolution? You literally use the word "evolution."

 

[nPeace]

Your words, not mine:



You were talking about evolution, and making a comparison to cars. Now you're claiming that this has nothing to do with evolution.

Then why are you talking about natural selection, and evolution? You literally use the word "evolution."

Apparently you don't seem to understand what you read. How can I talk to you then? When you can grasp what I wrote, we can talk, but if you can't, we have a problem, already ... and it's not even a small one.

Another thing. it's good to listen to others, especially when they are pointing out something to you. Rather than insisting that you know what you are talking about.
Try reading the post carefully.
Or maybe it looks like garbage?

 

[Darkstorn]

Apparently you don't seem to understand what you read. How can I talk to you then? When you can grasp what I wrote, we can talk, but if you can't, we have a problem, already ... and it's not even a small one.

You could try explaining if you feel i've misunderstood you, instead of just going on a tangent about it. But this is more likely:

You're being delusional.

Another thing. it's good to listen to others, especially when they are pointing out something to you.

Agreed, but you have not pointed anything out to me, you're just avoiding answering. But listen to me:

Ima point out to you, that you are failing to respond to my post. I responded to the part of your post i wanted to respond, and you are not addressing that. At all.

Rather than insisting that you know what you are talking about.

I'm not insisting anything regarding my knowledge level; I made a bunch of arguments that you are failing to respond to. That's all that happened.

Try reading the post carefully.
Or maybe it looks like garbage?

I read your post VERY carefully, which resulted in me wanting to address one part of it, with these arguments:

1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

I find these arguments to be entirely valid in context of your post. Shame you don't. But then it should be easy to fix this misunderstanding. I don't understand why you're fighting it instead.

 

[dad]

Counterpoint: You are an evil last thursdayist who's advocating for a deceiver god planting false evidence. Prove me wrong.

If you won't, i won't even bother reading your response.

False accusations from people rejecting light offered to them many many times (pretending that people who admit science doesn't know what the forces and laws were like on earth in the very distant past) is a cowards way out of facing the facts. No response needed.

 

[Darkstorn]

False accusations from people rejecting light offered to them many many times (pretending that people who admit science doesn't know what the forces and laws were like on earth in the very distant past) is a cowards way out of facing the facts. No response needed.

Yet, you responded.

 

[dad]

Yet, you responded.

I address stuff.

 

[Darkstorn]

I address stuff.

Yes, but you have failed to notice that i only accused you of being a last thursdayist, which you then admitted to:

(pretending that people who admit science doesn't know what the forces and laws were like on earth in the very distant past)

If the terminology confuses you too much:

Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia

^^ That's you. It takes an evil person to advocate for a deceiver god in my opinion.

 

[dad]

Yes, but you have failed to notice that i only accused you of being a last thursdayist, which you then admitted to:

Not sure why you lie.

If the terminology confuses you too much:

Omphalos hypothesis - Wikipedia

^^ That's you. It takes an evil person to advocate for a deceiver god in my opinion.

Nonsense.


Nothing in your link applies to how science does not know what the nature in the past was like. The deception comes in pretending we know it was the same as now and modeling the past by that belief.

 

[Darkstorn]

Nothing in your link applies to how science does not know what the nature in the past was like.

Yes it does: It describes a person saying "Nothing in your link applies to how science does not know what the nature in the past was like."

I can't show you a double-negative: Science doesn't claim that things were different in the past, nor is that link about science. It's about people who share your belief system. I'm not talking about science, and your side isn't the opposition.

Your side is universally considered crackpots of the highest caliber. No one else makes the claim that things worked so differently in the past that it renders ALL evidence "wrong."

The deception comes in pretending we know it was the same as now and modeling the past by that belief.

No, you need to back down a peg. The real stance is this: No one makes claims of anything being different / same in the past except for YOU: Science only assumes "same state past" provisionally, because otherwise it would imply that you have a god who plants deceptive evidence with the appearance of millions of years, but a "true age" of only thousands of years.

Which is exactly your claim. Anyway: I've no interest in arguing about your belief system. I know what it entails: A lot of complaining about everyone else being a tool of satan, and a lot less self-reflection from the grand buffoon making those claims.

 

[nPeace]

You could try explaining if you feel i've misunderstood you, instead of just going on a tangent about it. But this is more likely:

You're being delusional.



Agreed, but you have not pointed anything out to me, you're just avoiding answering. But listen to me:

Ima point out to you, that you are failing to respond to my post. I responded to the part of your post i wanted to respond, and you are not addressing that. At all.



I'm not insisting anything regarding my knowledge level; I made a bunch of arguments that you are failing to respond to. That's all that happened.



I read your post VERY carefully, which resulted in me wanting to address one part of it, with these arguments:

1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

I find these arguments to be entirely valid in context of your post. Shame you don't. But then it should be easy to fix this misunderstanding. I don't understand why you're fighting it instead.

If you are having a civil conversation with someone, and someone suddenly jumps in, and starts arguing with you, on something you did not say, and when you say to them, "No, I was not talking about that." The person insists, over and over again, that you were... never saying once, "Oh, okay. What were you referring to then?" Would you bother to volunteer to tell that person what you were saying? Wouldn't you get the impression that the person is all about themselves? Be honest.
To make it worst, the person jumped on you (just imagine you could be in two places at once) in another instance, and accusing you wrongfully and referring to what you said, as garbage, and raving on.

Mind you, this after you witnessed the same person inject himself in another conversation - not to have a peaceful civilized discussion, but to "attack a clueless ", and to heckle and name call the individual... while "grabbing popcorn to humor themselves, not discuss".

What would your thoughts be about that person's motive for engaging you, especially since this happened after you supported the person that they targeted for assault, by the individual? Be honest.
Would you volunteer any information?

What's your impression of that person?
Wouldn't you think a person that asserts such an elevated view of themselves should be allowed to demonstrate their level of intelligence?
What do you think?

 

[dad]

Yes it does:

Quote it then.

I can't show you a double-negative: Science doesn't claim that things were different in the past, nor is that link about science. It's about people who share your belief system. I'm not talking about science, and your side isn't the opposition.

You are not talking about science, that is true. Science claims it was the same. Deal with it.

Your side is universally considered crackpots of the highest caliber. No one else makes the claim that things worked so differently in the past that it renders ALL evidence "wrong."

God considers believers the best. Lie we should care what anyone else thinks?

No, you need to back down a peg. The real stance is this: No one makes claims of anything being different / same in the past except for YOU: Science only assumes "same state past" provisionally, because otherwise it would imply that you have a god who plants deceptive evidence with the appearance of millions of years, but a "true age" of only thousands of years.

It implies no such foolish made up thing. What the different past implies is that you cannot make stuff up and deny the records for no reason.
Your belief system of TOE is unsupportable. Your denial is pathetic.

 

[Darkstorn]

If you are having a civil conversation with someone, and someone suddenly jumps in, and starts arguing with you, on something you did not say, and when you say to them, "No, I was not talking about that." The person insists, over and over again, that you were... never saying once, "Oh, okay. What were you referring to then?" Would you bother to volunteer to tell that person what you were saying? Wouldn't you get the impression that the person is all about themselves? Be honest.

Honestly? You're quite good at constructing straw men. This is a public debate forum, and i addressed a post of yours with several civil arguments. You then enacted this weird act instead of addressing those points.

In a public debate, it is considered good manners to respond to arguments. Instead of that, you're trying to undermine my character here.

To make it worst, the person jumped on you (just imagine you could be in two places at once) in another instance, and accusing you wrongfully and referring to what you said, as garbage, and raving on.

Again, you're pretty good at constructing straw men. You keep ascribing motivations to other people as if you were a mind reader. THAT is rude.

Mind you, this after you witnessed the same person inject himself in another conversation - not to have a peaceful civilized discussion, but to "attack a clueless ", and to heckle and name call the individual... while "grabbing popcorn to humor themselves, not discuss".

You're calling yourself clueless, i never even implied anything of the sort. I only argued your arguments, not your character. I have not called you names. This post so far is 100% an attempt at striking my character.

Instead of my arguments.

What would your thoughts be about that person's motive for engaging you, especially since this happened after you supported the person that they targeted for assault, by the individual? Be honest.

I don't start guessing other peoples' motives or motivations. I am not a mind reader.

Also stop with the damn hyperbole. Everything is now an assault or heckling. I find this extremely delusional: ALL i wanted was a civil argument for the points i made, and you think this is appropriate?

Would you volunteer any information?

I don't know, i've never witnessed anything like you're describing.

What's your impression of that person?

Only that you have a wild imagination for making such wildly contradictory characters. Almost like you tried to invent a bunch of different bad things without thinking how they work together.

Wouldn't you think a person that asserts such an elevated view of themselves should be allowed to demonstrate their level of intelligence?
What do you think?

I think you really love trying to lead in questions. Ok: ACCUSATION TIME:

For this post i'm going to say that you're not only rude, you are incapable of addressing arguments directed towards your arguments. Then you pull off a passive-aggressive show of self-pity that backfires so hard, it makes me want to think that you're the kind of guy who attacks others pre-emptively and then claims "i'm only being defensive!"

Nice job, guy. Here's the arguments, once more, for you:

I think natural selection needs to act, because it is proposed as the driver for evolution, and we can't have a mindless driver that doesn't just drive randomly.
Can you imagine a driver-less car with no AI? It's path would be random, not guided.

1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

Forgot to add this: Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

I was being civil, i was responding to your argument, and you're failing to reply to it and instead go with the quite random idea that "you weren't talking about evolution."

 

[Darkstorn]

It implies no such foolish made up thing. What the different past implies is that you cannot make stuff up and deny the records for no reason.
Your belief system of TOE is unsupportable. Your denial is pathetic.

The only thing i'm denying is your ability to make a coherent argument.

 

[nPeace]

Honestly? You're quite good at constructing straw men. This is a public debate forum, and i addressed a post of yours with several civil arguments. You then enacted this weird act instead of addressing those points.

In a public debate, it is considered good manners to respond to arguments. Instead of that, you're trying to undermine my character here.



Again, you're pretty good at constructing straw men. You keep ascribing motivations to other people as if you were a mind reader. THAT is rude.



You're calling yourself clueless, i never even implied anything of the sort. I only argued your arguments, not your character. I have not called you names. This post so far is 100% an attempt at striking my character.

Instead of my arguments.



I don't start guessing other peoples' motives or motivations. I am not a mind reader.

Also stop with the damn hyperbole. Everything is now an assault or heckling. I find this extremely delusional: ALL i wanted was a civil argument for the points i made, and you think this is appropriate?




I don't know, i've never witnessed anything like you're describing.



Only that you have a wild imagination for making such wildly contradictory characters. Almost like you tried to invent a bunch of different bad things without thinking how they work together.



I think you really love trying to lead in questions. Ok: ACCUSATION TIME:

For this post i'm going to say that you're not only rude, you are incapable of addressing arguments directed towards your arguments. Then you pull off a passive-aggressive show of self-pity that backfires so hard, it makes me want to think that you're the kind of guy who attacks others pre-emptively and then claims "i'm only being defensive!"

Nice job, guy. Here's the arguments, once more, for you:



1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

Forgot to add this: Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

I was being civil, i was responding to your argument, and you're failing to reply to it and instead go with the quite random idea that "you weren't talking about evolution."

I have replied to all your posts. The argument you presented is not relevant to anything I said. How many times are you goings to copy paste that thing?
I'll respond when it is relevant.
I can't respond to claims I have not made, other than by saying what I said before.

 

[Darkstorn]

I have replied to all your posts.

Yes, you have replied to my posts, but ignored all the points. You know this.

The argument you presented is not relevant to anything I said.

Stop making things up. It's relevant:

I think natural selection needs to act, because it is proposed as the driver for evolution, and we can't have a mindless driver that doesn't just drive randomly.
Can you imagine a driver-less car with no AI? It's path would be random, not guided.

1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

How many times are you goings to copy paste that thing?

As long as you'll respond to its entire contents or stop posting in this thread.

I'll respond when it is relevant.

That was when i first made the arguments.

I can't respond to claims I have not made, other than by saying what I said before.

I think natural selection needs to act, because it is proposed as the driver for evolution, and we can't have a mindless driver that doesn't just drive randomly.
Can you imagine a driver-less car with no AI? It's path would be random, not guided.

^^ Your words. It's from a post that talks about evolution, and natural selection, and happens to mention a car.

 

[nPeace]

@Darkstorn

As long as you'll respond to its entire contents or stop posting in this thread.

Dude, you are forgetting one thing.
RF has a little button beside your user name. It's marked "IGNORE".
Once I hit that button, you are history, where your posts on this thread, and my eyes are concerned.
So just keep pushing it dude.

 

[Darkstorn]

Dude, you are forgetting one thing.
RF has a little button beside your user name. It's marked "IGNORE".

Yes, run away.

Once I hit that button, you are history, where your posts on this thread, and my eyes are concerned.
So just keep pushing it dude.

No, once you hit that button, you have already lost. I'm the last person to have replied to your last argument in your own thread. Your failures to respond in a civilized manner have been noted, and your choice to instead run away, shall be the beginning of the end for this thread.

Nah, just being dramatic. You really, really suck at this:

I think natural selection needs to act, because it is proposed as the driver for evolution, and we can't have a mindless driver that doesn't just drive randomly.
Can you imagine a driver-less car with no AI? It's path would be random, not guided.

1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

 

[nPeace]

@Darkstorn By the way, is that your regular role for bailing on threads like these? Isn't that a waste? Or were you successful, at other times, and so, imagined you would be here? You picked the wrong cat this time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, run away.



No, once you hit that button, you have already lost. I'm the last person to have replied to your last argument in your own thread. Your failures to respond in a civilized manner have been noted, and your choice to instead run away, shall be the beginning of the end for this thread.

Nah, just being dramatic, you really, really suck at this:



1. Cars are designed by humans and require an operator, either a human, or a pre-existing set of instructions(like an "AI".)

2. Evolution wasn't designed by humans, and doesn't require an operator.

3. No paths are random, even for an out-of-control car. It'll move according to all the pathways available to it, based on the current situation and any related phenomena and events. Furthermore, no car moves automatically, it needs an intention behind it. Slap a stone on the pedal, and it'll move. But someone put the stone in there.

Appearance of randomness tends to confuse the hell out of people, but very rarely are things truly "random."

Consequently, nothing about evolution is random. Some peoples' understanding of it makes them think of it as random. The problem is those people.

That is sadly his favorite tactic. When people get too tired of his dishonest posts and give him just a fraction of what he dishes out he plays that same old song and hits ignore.

And welcome to the club. Keep correcting him, it drives him nuts that people are doing this and he eventually takes you off of ignore. Then he goes through the same rigamarole again. I have been on and off ignore several times. Supposedly right now he is ignoring me.

Oh, and welcome to the club!