|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Ignorant Creationists vs. Knowledgeable Evolutionists | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
It seems possible that she really doesn't get a lot of what you are saying. It is also possible that she is using the questions as a way of focussing on some things you haven't thought through. In any case, when you are asked questions what is your problem with answering them? Frequently we don't understand each other and it takes a lot of back and forth to clearify it. I think that's better than assuming we do understand or putting words in another's mouth. As an example, we have had whole threads attempting to clarify what "complexity" is and no one has defined it yet. Therefore when you use the word we are left with a hole in the communication. She asked me to clarify message 100. I clarified in message 113. Then instead of responding directly to either message she wants my clarification clarified. This woman is impossible to dialog sense with. She needs moderated, not me. Complexity is a simple word. The context of where it is used should be sufficient to know how it is used. The same is true with the words I've used here. It's not me that needs to "think through." It's Schraf who needs to read and think through WHAT I SAID, which was nothing at all so profoundly complicated that it warrants all this fuss. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-17-2004 10:25 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
If you don't have any more details, cannot answer any of my questions of clarification, or don't have anything at all further to say, then is the problem that I am asking the questions or is the problem that you don't have any answers to them? I have no more details regarding my statements. If you care to refute any of them, go for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
No, Buz, "complexity" is not a simple word. Without a precise definition of it the discussion can not continue. When someone talks in quantitative terms about something they have to supply a way to actually calculate the quantities involved. No one, you included, has supplied that.
I read over the exchange and you are not clear. There are lots of ways of interpreting what you said. What we find when we keep asking questions is that you don't know exactly what you mean. If you did you could just explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Here's a basic fact about evolutionary theory Buz. Everything animal or plant should be a "complete" animal or plant. How could it be otherwise ? If everything existing is complete, lacking nothing for reproduction or survival, what on earth is in the process of evolving now? Even the simplest living things observed are quite complicated and fulfilling their individual functions in their ecosystems to make up the ecosphere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
No, Buz, "complexity" is not a simple word. Without a precise definition of it the discussion can not continue. When someone talks in quantitative terms about something they have to supply a way to actually calculate the quantities involved. No one, you included, has supplied that. I read over the exchange and you are not clear. There are lots of ways of interpreting what you said. What we find when we keep asking questions is that you don't know exactly what you mean. If you did you could just explain. Then Schraf should specify exactly which word she doesn't understand in the context and what her problem is that she doesn't understand what I have said. Why can't I make some statements and simply let them stand as stated so long as they are not false. She hasn't shown any of my statements to be false, nor even tried. She wants to draw me into science debates and that is not the purpose/topic of the thread nor the intent of my statements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Then Schraf can try to help you see what she needs to understand. We'll wait then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Here's a basic fact about evolutionary theory Buz. Everything animal or plant should be a "complete" animal or plant. How could it be otherwise ? If it is transitional, would you consider it's evolution to be complete? What on earth would you say is in the process of evolving today? Even the simplest organisms seem to be quite complicated when analyzed, fulfilling their particular function in their ecosystems to make up the ecosphere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If it is transitional, would you consider it's evolution to be complete? Nope.There isn't a complete critter. Everything is constantly evolving.
What on earth would you say is in the process of evolving today? everything.
Even the simplest organisms seem to be quite complicated when analyzed, fulfilling their particular function in their ecosystems to make up the ecosphere. First, complexity has nothing to do with evolution. And as conditions change, some critters will do well, others will become extinct. That's the filter. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Then Schraf can try to help you see what she needs to understand. We'll wait then. OK Ned. Fair enough. I'll be outa town most of tomorrow. Take care.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Nope.There isn't a complete critter. Everything is constantly evolving. Why then do most living things basically remain the same for alleged millions of years?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
They don't. They change, evolve.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
What has aged/early croc evolved into?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Modern crocodiles, aligators and camans.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
1. What improvements are verified for croc?
2. What fossil evidence do we have for verification that other reptiles have evolved from croc? 3. Why have some crocs allegedly evolved into other animals and the rest remained crocs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
1. What improvements are verified for croc? What the hell does improvement have to do with Evolution?
2. What fossil evidence do we have for verification that other reptiles have evolved from croc? Great idea for a thread but it has little to do with this one.
3. Why have some crocs allegedly evolved into other animals and the rest remained crocs? There is no purpose to evolution, it simply happens. Change goes on all the time. If the random change helps things survive to breed, then it gets passed on. So some changes helped earlier species evolve into other critters. Pointless, purposeless evolution. GOD's system. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024