Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:[bTo propose that evolution be defined as a "process" is nothing new; it was proposed a long time ago.

It's banal, it's not 'proposed' and never was 'proposed' as being a process, and it's not defined as 'process'.

You're not getting anywhere, Paul.

Spearthrower wrote:Remember back here? Yeah, the thing is that I, for my sins, seem to understand what Paul's saying better than anyone here.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... y#p2793292

Spearthrower wrote:
E&NS, properly treated, comprises no teleology. It's not only entirely avoidable, but it's necessary to avoid it.

Genes aren't retained for future utility. They're retained because the organism they constitute survived and reproduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

Teleology (from τέλος, telos, 'end,' 'aim,' or 'goal,' and λόγος, logos, 'explanation' or 'reason')[1] or finality[2][3] is a reason or an explanation for something which serves as a function of its end, its purpose, or its goal, as opposed to something which serves as a function of its cause.

This is really what it's all about at its heart. Paul wants to argue for a goal-directed universe (the past contingent on the present), and I suspect that if Paul could ever engage in any level of honesty (yeah, good luck with that!) that we'd discover theistic evolution at its core.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Theistic evolution (also known as theistic evolutionism or God-guided evolution) is a theological view that God creates through laws of nature.

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",[4] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".[5] He lists six general premises on which different versions of theistic evolution typically rest. They include:[6]

1) the prevailing cosmological model, with the universe coming into being about 13.8 billion years ago;
2) the fine-tuned universe;
3) evolution and natural selection;
4) No special supernatural intervention is involved once evolution got under way;
5) Humans are a result of these evolutionary processes; and
6) Despite all these, humans are unique. The concern for the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the continuous search for God among all human cultures defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature.

Under direction.

Those of you who don't understand Paul should consider what he's written from these 2 words: under direction

It's not once or twice: it's a repeating theme:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p2793527

Paul's chosen definition wrote:a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

Evolution began with the Big Bang because it only banged under direction in order to produce humans.

Paul won't touch this with a barge-pole, like the post doesn't even exist. At best, he'll mutter some incoherent imprecation against atheists.

Spearthrower wrote:More pointless, stupid nonsense.

You know what else Darwin said?

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.

You have already conceded the point I have raised; everybody here is a witness.

You promote the use of slang. Your fiction is exposed and quashed by the Darwinian fact. Evololution = Process.

Spearthrower wrote:Plus, as already explained to the guy unable to process anything a millimetre past his nose - that's a definition of process which categorically is untrue with respect to evolution, but given the combination of ignorance and bullshitting, he continues to show why he's still ranting bollocks at people who think his ideas are ignorant shite.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... l#p2793810

Spearthrower wrote:Remember back here? Yeah, the thing is that I, for my sins, seem to understand what Paul's saying better than anyone here.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... y#p2793292

Spearthrower wrote:
E&NS, properly treated, comprises no teleology. It's not only entirely avoidable, but it's necessary to avoid it.

Genes aren't retained for future utility. They're retained because the organism they constitute survived and reproduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology

Teleology (from τέλος, telos, 'end,' 'aim,' or 'goal,' and λόγος, logos, 'explanation' or 'reason')[1] or finality[2][3] is a reason or an explanation for something which serves as a function of its end, its purpose, or its goal, as opposed to something which serves as a function of its cause.

This is really what it's all about at its heart. Paul wants to argue for a goal-directed universe (the past contingent on the present), and I suspect that if Paul could ever engage in any level of honesty (yeah, good luck with that!) that we'd discover theistic evolution at its core.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

Theistic evolution (also known as theistic evolutionism or God-guided evolution) is a theological view that God creates through laws of nature.

Francis Collins describes theistic evolution as the position that "evolution is real, but that it was set in motion by God",[4] and characterizes it as accepting "that evolution occurred as biologists describe it, but under the direction of God".[5] He lists six general premises on which different versions of theistic evolution typically rest. They include:[6]

1) the prevailing cosmological model, with the universe coming into being about 13.8 billion years ago;
2) the fine-tuned universe;
3) evolution and natural selection;
4) No special supernatural intervention is involved once evolution got under way;
5) Humans are a result of these evolutionary processes; and
6) Despite all these, humans are unique. The concern for the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the continuous search for God among all human cultures defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature.

Under direction.

Those of you who don't understand Paul should consider what he's written from these 2 words: under direction

It's not once or twice: it's a repeating theme:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p2793527

Paul's chosen definition wrote:a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end.

Evolution began with the Big Bang because it only banged under direction in order to produce humans.

Paul won't touch this with a barge-pole, like the post doesn't even exist. At best, he'll mutter some incoherent imprecation against atheists.

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Which vapid lie are you referencing troll.

Paul.

No need to reach far as you cited your own lie - you have ZERO data, yet you keep pretending you do.

Not only do you not have any data, never presented any data at all, but I can cite half a dozen posts of people ausking you to provide said data and you contriving some deranged diversion that always ended with no data being produced.

You want to try this, Paul - please feel free, I am right in the mood to publicly spank you right now.

Publicly, in this little forum. Go for it fall guy.

Tell me again how NS is a metaphor.

See, again you're just showing yourself as being completely unable to engage in any level of honesty.

For example, I've written explaining why NS is a metaphor dozens of times, and each time you've tossed out your usual distractions.

Anyone can type in 'metaphor' and look back through the numerous instances of me attempting to provide you with some nuance and education, but you aggressively fending off ever learning anything because of your swollen ego.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2793805

Spearthrower wrote:Regardless, one of the many reasons why what Darwin did or didn't say is irrelevant to science (not History) is that Darwin's understanding of E&NS, while vital as a discovery, is extremely impoverished comparative to the understanding today. Darwin spoke in metaphor because of the limitations of his understanding - in many ways, there's a natural progression in discovery that starts with metaphor but becomes nomenclature as deeper understanding is discovered. Even nomenclature is quasi-metaphorical, but that's way beyond your ability do discuss. Despite Darwin publishing his idea, we no longer use any of the language he used because it is not clear enough for modern usage, it just doesn't have the resolution necessary to do any work today. Even were your witterings legible, the best they'd ever be is insufficiently specific to have any import on the subject. Go learn stuff, Paul: stuff good.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2793650
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2793103
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2792887
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2792850
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2791506
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2789864
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... r#p2778619
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post9 ... or#p933091
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post9 ... or#p931764
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post8 ... or#p893911

pfrankinstein wrote:Explain how Charles Darwin did not propose a process to answer the speciation question.

And again, yet more examples of your own perfect lack of good faith discussion, or even basic honesty. It's all lies and bullshit with you.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2793545

Spearthrower wrote:Speciation wasn't actually a thing conceived of before, Darwin. That's kind of the entire point of why Darwin is remembered. For most of human history, species were seen as fixed quantities created as is.

So he didn't answer the speciation question by observing speciation, as that's just jumbled nonsense the kind of which indicates what the true state of your grasp of the topic is, but rather Darwin saw different traits in distributed populations that seemed suited - adapted to local environments, and hypothesized that not only did this come about by natural selection, but that this principle of adaptations accruing over generations could thereby provide, through extension, a naturalist account of the diversity of life.

At any point, you are perfectly free to stop pretending you know what Darwin wrote - the only way is up in this respect - not least because there is no value to you in pretending anyway - what some historical figure said about it is irrelevant, Paul. Darwin did not use the words you keep trying to put in his mouth, and you don't bolster your own ideas by repeatedly name-dropping him. What Darwin did and what you've done are not in the slightest bit analogous.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2793544
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2793243
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2789046
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2785988
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2784641
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2781286
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... n#p2778022

pfrankinstein wrote:WE appear to be stuck in a loop. All you.

That's because you're basically akin to an old parrot who has learned to squark out a very limited selection of humanish sounding tunes but is unable to change any of the trills, or adapt to its audience. The conversation is actually between you and your ego - we're just your dry-humping post, and guess what? We don't appreciate it in the slightest.

pfrankinstein wrote: Not my fault you can't grasp the basics.

The reason being that you aren't able even to achieve the basics - being so woefully ignorant isn't itself bad, but the towering ego stops you ever from moving forward.

THWOTH wrote:I'm bored with redundant arguments from definitional literalism - it's merely hiding behind words. Can you try something else now please Paul?

Spearthrower wrote:Go away, Paul. You're a waste of space.

You've got nothing, never had anything, and never will have anything other than unwarranted hubris.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Good enough to teach a child.

It does make sense that you'd work to attain the level of understanding of a child.

Keep trying; you'll get there one day.


While you've got that dictionary out: look up 'equivocation'.

In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument.

It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.

So says the man who who treats NS as a metophor when in fact it is a calculation made by nature.

Paul.

Spearthrower wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:Go away, Paul. You're a waste of space.

You've got nothing, never had anything, and never will have anything other than unwarranted hubris.

I would be just another fantasist without facts. 

B2
a series of actions that you take in order to achieve a result:

B2
a series of changes that happen naturally:

Spearthrower wrote:

I would be just another fantasist without facts. 

And you don't have facts, ergo...

Now go away - no one likes liars, Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:
What is it sir. You send a mixed message. Evolution = process. You have already conceded the fact.

Spearthrower wrote:Fucking liar can't stop lying.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseud ... l#p2794586

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Evolution is not a process because... over to you thrower.

Make your excuses.

Go for it. Fall guy.

Paul.

Just exposed that lie.

Going to address the fact that you've been shown lying over and over?

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.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Or do you maintain that evolution = biological evolution. A different question to the one asked.

pfrankinstein wrote:What is Evolution?

pfrankinstein wrote:I have your answer, we all do. You delude yourself by ignoring the fact I have already established.

pfrankinstein wrote:Shall we call my argument "Darwin's preference? And yours the perpetuation of slang and ignorence?