Posted: Jan 10, 2023 6:49 pm
pfrankinstein wrote:
I bring evidence, etymology of the word. Victorian slang corrected by the innovator. Only to be reinvented by you as another type of slang for a different subject.. If we are taking about "evolution , then we are talking about a process.
If we a talking about 'biological evolution' then that would be a different subject.
You understand. I do hope you feign your ignorence.
Paul.
You are talking utter shite that you seem to think convinces someone you know what you're talking about.
In reality, it's clear you don't know what you're talking about.
For example, this idea that you've provided evidence of the etymology of a word... wha..? It's just gibbering mumblefuckery.
In reality, I am not using any language in a strange way at all - I am using words exactly as they're used in the relevant fields of science, whereas your usage is incoherent or wrong.
And your repetitive lying is confusing you.
For example, you keep on wittering on about 'process' as if I've said evolution isn't a process, despite me actively challenging you dozens of times to provide a single instance of me saying otherwise.
Again, because this is how the universe actually works, I can provide direct quotations from this thread showing that you are fucking lying again.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2785391
Spearthrower wrote:A hair doesn't evolve over time, Paul. It grows.
A hairstyle, however, does evolve over time, Paul.
That's because the word 'evolve' means 'to develop gradually', Paul.
We wouldn't say the hair evolves, Paul, because it just grows in dimension.
But, Paul, we would say that the hairstyle evolves because it changes in many and more complex ways.
What we definitely wouldn't do, Paul, is to say that a hairstyle evolves in a manner equivalent to that involved with natural selection, Paul, or pretend, Paul, that just because the word 'evolve' is used that it also has to mean that all aspects of the term used in Biology - shorthand for a process involving inheritance and differential survival statistically measured over generations of living organisms - also just get ignorantly transferred across as if anyone with half a brain, Paul, actually thinks that's logical, Paul. Like words, Paul, are fucking magic, or something.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2785633
Evolution is how biology has come to be - look around at anything biological today, and the process by which it came to be like that is evolution.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2785431
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2778912
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2779773
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2780033
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2780433
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2781133
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1336229
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1336119
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1336084
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1337088
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post1 ... s#p1336583
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... s#p2777278
So why are you lying about what I said TO ME?
Are you that egotistical that you think you can somehow oblige me to believe that I didn't say what I clearly did, but instead said something you keep lying about?
Put up or shut your lying trap, Paul. Provide a single instance of me denying that evolution is a process: OF COURSE IT"S A FUCKING PROCESS, you total dingbat! Evolution, being change over time, necessarily involves a process, i.e. a sequence of events over time... it's like arguing with a 3 year old.
I've shown so many instances of your lying now - it's time you start owning this. If you can't change your behavior, why do you expect others to change their response to you?
Same input - same output.
Repeat these baseless lies again about me, and I will reference these to the moderators - you more than deserve it, despite everyone here giving you ample chances to engage with some basic fucking honesty.