Why evolution did not comes like this ?

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Are you suggesting that a "higher power", such as god or allah, "chose" which species were to continue to exist and others were not? And that the theory of evolution contradicts this somehow?

Look at the wiki on free will. It's a mess containing no knowledge about how things are chosen. You are responsible for causing that mess with evolution theory.

 

[LuisDantas]

We've talked before, and I know you also have no idea how choosing works.

I have no idea what you mean by choosing in these threads, that much is true.

Particularly because you seem to certain that it somehow connects strongly to speciation, despite a complete lack of evidence or even of arguments pointing towards that.

So far no one seems to have understood what you mean, so I am not worried about that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Look at the wiki on free will. It's a mess containing no knowledge about how things are chosen. You are responsible for causing that mess with evolution theory.

So you are saying that everyone is wrong except you? And that for whatever reason the blame lies with "evolution theory"?

Surely you realize that it is not very reasonable to simply state that everyone should trust you over their own findings, particularly when you have no coherent argument to present?

 

[LuisDantas]

Obviously no evolutionist understands about how choosing works, that ignorance is what keeps the evolution gang going.

You insist on calling it "ignorance", yet it is in reality an impressive body of evidence and experimentation that is both consistent and eminently useful, sustaining quite a lot of fruitful research and technological applications.

Despite an utter lack of understanding of how choosing works, no less, if you are correct in what you say.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So you are saying that everyone is wrong except you? And that for whatever reason the blame lies with "evolution theory"?

Surely you realize that it is not very reasonable to simply state that everyone should trust you over their own findings, particularly when you have no coherent argument to present?

You are just an evolutionist ideologist, nothing what you say has any value for the facts of the matter, it is all politics with you, that is apparent. The common discourse notion about choosing is correct, and creationism uses the same structure as in common discourse.

If you don't understand what I say, then that means you don't understand common discourse, which is ofcourse not true.

And we've talked about this previously and then you didn't understand what I meant with common discourse either. So....endless politics, just trying to get rid of all knowledge about how things are chosen.

So I am saying everybody is right about how choosing works, the structure we all use when we talk in terms of choosing in daily life is by and large correct. But then people's ideas about how choosing works, they don't look at common discourse, so many of them are wrong.

 

[Valjean]

You still have not clarified your concept of "choosing." You say evolutionists don't understand the concept, yet you make no effort to clarify the concept.
How can we answer your assertion that we don't understand how 'choosing' works if you don't explain it to us?
What do you mean by "choosing?"

And again: Why are there so many different species on Earth? What mechanism accounts for this diversity?

 

[dust1n]

This really does fall into the category of increasingly depressing threads.

 

[averageJOE]

You still have not clarified your concept of "choosing." You say evolutionists don't understand the concept, yet you make no effort to clarify the concept.
How can we answer your assertion that we don't understand how 'choosing' works if you don't explain it to us?
What do you mean by "choosing?"

And again: Why are there so many different species on Earth? What mechanism accounts for this diversity?

I pretty much think he means we have to choose to accept he is right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[David M]

You are just an evolutionist ideologist, nothing what you say has any value for the facts of the matter, it is all politics with you, that is apparent. The common discourse notion about choosing is correct, and creationism uses the same structure as in common discourse..

The standard definiton of choosing is:

choose
v.tr.
1. To select from a number of possible alternatives; decide on and pick out: Which book did you choose at the library?
2.
a. To prefer above others: chooses the supermarket over the neighborhood grocery store.
b. To determine or decide: chose to fly rather than drive.

Those definitions do not encompass the types of things that you include, thus you are using the terms with your own personal definition (that you will not explain).

Discourse is:
1Written or spoken communication or debate:

This also does not match with the personal definition that you are using. For example the statement "The common discourse notion about choosing is correct" is meaningless using the standard definition of the term discourse.

In other words you are just making stuff up, refusing to elucidate on the meaning that you ascribe to these words and then claiming that its our fault that we can't guess the secret meaning behind your terminology.

My guess is that this is because you know that its all a bunch of hooey that you cannot support in any way so the only way you can proceed without it being clear that you are talking rubbish is to refuse to clarify anything, repeat that only you are right and throw around a bunch of insults.

I pretty much think he means we have to choose to accept he is right and everyone else is wrong.

Strange how it doesn't pan out that way, the majority are choosing that he is wrong.

 

[Windwalker]

I'll be turning off my notifications for this thread now. I added the "choice" person to my ignore list 14 pages ago as they were not genuinely engaged in discussion. I see nothing of interest here. Surprised it's still continuing. That's my contribution at this point. To other threads where both sides are better suited for mutual discussion...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You still have not clarified your concept of "choosing." You say evolutionists don't understand the concept, yet you make no effort to clarify the concept.
How can we answer your assertion that we don't understand how 'choosing' works if you don't explain it to us?
What do you mean by "choosing?"

And again: Why are there so many different species on Earth? What mechanism accounts for this diversity?

It's 100 percent an attitude problem on your part. You try to get rid of all knowledge about how things are chosen. That is how you don't understand how choosing works.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I pretty much think he means we have to choose to accept he is right and everyone else is wrong.

Except of course, creationism uses the same structure for choosing as it is in common discourse.

It is really evolutionists who have elitist and idiosyncratic ideas about choosing which nobody uses in practise. And then they start with authoritarian huffing and puffing about the scientific method to lend credibility to their ideas about choosing having the same logic as being forced.

 

[LuisDantas]

You are just an evolutionist ideologist, nothing what you say has any value for the facts of the matter, it is all politics with you, that is apparent. The common discourse notion about choosing is correct, and creationism uses the same structure as in common discourse.

If you don't understand what I say, then that means you don't understand common discourse, which is ofcourse not true.

It is very much a fact that I don't see much if any sense in what you are saying.

At this point that does not really worry me, sad to say.

And we've talked about this previously and then you didn't understand what I meant with common discourse either. So....endless politics, just trying to get rid of all knowledge about how things are chosen.

Unless, for instance, it turns out that what you say makes no sense. What are the odds?

So I am saying everybody is right about how choosing works, the structure we all use when we talk in terms of choosing in daily life is by and large correct. But then people's ideas about how choosing works, they don't look at common discourse, so many of them are wrong.

You realize that this, too, makes no sense, I hope.

 

[LuisDantas]

Except of course, creationism uses the same structure for choosing as it is in common discourse.

It is really evolutionists who have elitist and idiosyncratic ideas about choosing which nobody uses in practise. And then they start with authoritarian huffing and puffing about the scientific method to lend credibility to their ideas about choosing having the same logic as being forced.

You realize that it is nearly always a bad idea to lie?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You realize that this, too, makes no sense, I hope.

It is transparant to me it is all just your own attitude about choosing, is why you say this makes no sense. You don't want any idea about choosing to make sense.

If I ask 10 evolutionists how choosing works, I get 10 different ideas, and when I ask them a week later, each of them will have a different idea about it again.

There is no lying on my part at all, that is the way it is, it's the truth.

You can see on the wiki on free will what a mess it is, so.....

 

[LuisDantas]

It is transparant to me it is all just your own attitude about choosing, is why you say this makes no sense.

If you say so. It is still the truth. I can't possibly even attempt to believe in what you are saying,

As someone else once said about another matter, "it is not right. It is not even wrong."

You don't want any idea about choosing to make sense.

Now, here... here you are just lying.

If I ask 10 evolutionists how choosing works, I get 10 different ideas, and when I ask them a week later, each of them will have a different idea about it again.

That may well be. It is an interesting subject matter, still very badly understood.

What it is not, though, is significantly connected to the theory of evolution. As is to be expected, since choice is a phylosophical matter while evolution is completely biological.

There is no lying on my part at all, that is the way it is, it's the truth.

You can see on the wiki on free will what a mess it is, so.....

So you are still lying, is that what you mean?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If you say so. It is still the truth. I can't possibly even attempt to believe in what you are saying,

As someone else once said about another matter, "it is not right. It is not even wrong."

Now, here... here you are just lying.

That may well be. It is an interesting subject matter, still very badly understood.

What it is not, though, is significantly connected to the theory of evolution. As is to be expected, since choice is a phylosophical matter while evolution is completely biological.

So you are still lying, is that what you mean?

I debated evolutionists / atheists more than 10 years, I know what I am talking about.

Ofcourse when you say choice is a philosophical matter and not biological, then that tends to support everything I have said. You need to have a scientific / factual attitude about how choosing works.

 

[LuisDantas]

I debated evolutionists / atheists more than 10 years, I know what I am talking about.

It does not show.

Ofcourse when you say choice is a philosophical matter and not biological, then that tends to support everything I have said.

In your head. Perhaps.

You need to have a scientific / factual attitude about how choosing works.

Which you do not.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

It does not show.



In your head. Perhaps.



Which you do not.

Simply stonewalling, trying to run all knowledge about how things are chosen into the ground. It is all just 100 percent attitude issues and no reasoning.

People who have knowledge about how things are chosen, which knowledge they cherish to some extent, would not respond the way you do, obviously.

 

[LuisDantas]

Simply stonewalling, trying to run all knowledge about how things are chosen into the ground. It is all just 100 percent attitude issues and no reasoning.

People who have knowledge about how things are chosen, which knowledge they cherish to some extent, would not respond the way you do, obviously.

You do not want to be taken seriously, now do you?