The_Metatron wrote:Bullshit.

Theistic evolution requires a belief that a god is running things. You aren’t the only person with the internets, you know.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

noun: etymology
the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.
"the decline of etymology as a linguistic discipline"
the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning.

Words by opinoin based interprataion , meanings, also evolve until the difinative definition is found.

If NS = a calculation made by nature and not metaphor .?

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:Words by opinoin based interprataion , meanings, also evolve until the difinative definition is found.

Holy fuck, wow.

Hey, just curious; if the meaning of words evolves by means of opinion based interpretation, how do we find our way to "the definitive definition", why would we recognize said definition as the definitive one rather than simply continue to alter its meaning by means of our opinion based interpretations of it?

Greg the Grouper wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Words by opinoin based interprataion , meanings, also evolve until the difinative definition is found.

Holy fuck, wow.

Hey, just curious; if the meaning of words evolves by means of opinion based interpretation, how do we find our way to "the definitive definition", why would we recognize said definition as the definitive one rather than simply continue to alter its meaning by means of our opinion based interpretations of it?

Chart making and defining words is what we do. Perhaps I am mistaken.

Treated As a sample, WHAT EXACTLY DO WE HAVE?

From the initial conjecture a valid explanation , mechanics to the beaks of finch and now life science , the microscope..
So. mine so ridiculous. To relate.

The definitive answer (as I see it) would be a calaboration between several difinitive answers and perspectives.

A type of logical gravitational force.

Paul.

pfrankinstein wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:over zelouse athiest scientists.

Personally, I'd like to hear more about the over-zealous atheist scientists, and what role they play in a thread they're unlikely to have ever seen which has no bearing whatsoever on their respective fields.

Many an athiest set their stall out by defining the phenominon in a particular way.

Richard Dawkins admits to such.

As I see it the subject, the phenominon , Evolution should be defined by Charles Darwin's initial instinct.

So ambiguose the meaning of "Evolution, .

What is Evolution. According to.......

What is biological evolution.

.........
I'd be turning science on its head , to define "evolution as charles Darwin intended.

Have you sir ever stated that this that and the other ". evolves, evolved , Evolution, and NOT equated The mechanism.?

The sentence you wrote, the words you used still reads true. Yes with or without mechanism.


...........

Paul.

Are you a compulsive liar, Paul?

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

Pathological lying, also known as mythomania and pseudologia fantastica, is a chronic behavior in which the person habitually or compulsively lies.[1][2][3][4][5] These lies often serve no obvious purpose other than to paint oneself as a hero or victim, depending on the circumstance.[6][7][8][9][10] Pathological lying has been defined as: "a persistent, pervasive, and often compulsive pattern of excessive lying behavior that leads to clinically significant impairment of functioning in social, occupational, or other areas; causes marked distress; poses a risk to the self or others; and occurs for longer than six months."[1][5][10] Others have defined pathological lying as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime."[11]

pfrankinstein wrote:
im here because you claim to be the expert.

I know you lie, lie, lie and lie some more... but I don't know if it's pathological.

It certainly seems that way when you write the same lie over and over despite it being called out as a lie each and every time.


http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... t#p2792811

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:
Everybody here understands that you are the leading authority on the subject of biological evolution.

No they don't Paul.

Not only do they not, nor do you.

I've told you directly numerous times that this is just contrived bullshit on your part.

I certainly know a shit tonne more than you about it, but that doesn't make me an expert, an authority, or perceived that way by people here.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... t#p2789909

Spearthrower wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Let me help you thrower.

The dictionary meaning of EVOLUTION =

According to Charles Darwin EVOLUTION =

According to the self proclaimed gatekeeper of science and expert Evolution =

For clarity:

You proclaimed me a gatekeeper of science.
You proclaimed me an expert on evolution.

I did neither.

Stop acting like a mendacious little runt, Paul.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post2 ... t#p2789895

pfrankinstein wrote:
As self appointed gatekeeper of all that is "science", and also self proclaimed expert in the subject known as EVOLUTION. I seek your concise definition.

And at least half a dozen more instances of this lie, challenged each time by myself stating very clearly that I am not, never have been, and have never considered myself nor called myself an expert in evolutionary biology.

So why do you lie at people so much, Paul?

Your entire motive here appears to be founded on deceit.

The_Metatron wrote:Bullshit.

Theistic evolution requires a belief that a god is running things. You aren’t the only person with the internets, you know.

He wrote words, and that appears to entail also lying when it comes to Paul.

Greg the Grouper wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Words by opinoin based interprataion , meanings, also evolve until the difinative definition is found.

Holy fuck, wow.

Hey, just curious; if the meaning of words evolves by means of opinion based interpretation, how do we find our way to "the definitive definition", why would we recognize said definition as the definitive one rather than simply continue to alter its meaning by means of our opinion based interpretations of it?

Paul writes a list of words ignoring semantic sense, logic, and coherence. That is when he's not spending those words lying, that is.

That's 'how' according to Paul.

Spearthrower wrote:

Greg the Grouper wrote:

pfrankinstein wrote:Words by opinoin based interprataion , meanings, also evolve until the difinative definition is found.

Holy fuck, wow.

Hey, just curious; if the meaning of words evolves by means of opinion based interpretation, how do we find our way to "the definitive definition", why would we recognize said definition as the definitive one rather than simply continue to alter its meaning by means of our opinion based interpretations of it?

Paul writes a list of words ignoring semantic sense, logic, and coherence. That is when he's not spending those words lying, that is.

That's 'how' according to Paul.

Makes me miss Leroy, tbh. At least I could muddle through what the fuck he was saying.

Very similar individuals, indeed.

pfrankinstein wrote:
Words by opinoin based interprataion , meanings, also evolve until the difinative definition is found.

Definitive definition! Is that something like a definition that definitely defines? Or is it merely a tentative guess?

This portends a world of decisive decisions and, of course, the resulting coercive coercions that result from these conclusive conclusions. Sign your signature to the certification that certifies you're from the Department of Tautology Department.

pfrankinstein wrote:
A type of logical gravitational force.

Alluringly attractive, but stupidly dumb.

Cito di Pense wrote:
Definitive definition! Is that something like a definition that definitely defines? Or is it merely a tentative guess?

Apparently it is discovered, having been hidden away somewhere awaiting said discovery. Probably down the back of the sofa, I expect.

Spearthrower wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:
Definitive definition! Is that something like a definition that definitely defines? Or is it merely a tentative guess?

Apparently it is discovered, having been hidden away somewhere awaiting said discovery. Probably down the back of the sofa, I expect.

Lots of fake news is discovered.

In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was "bullshit!"

A type of logical gravitational farce, as it were.

Providing there was someone to pull me back out again after a few minutes, I have to say it would be fascinating to experience perceiving the world from inside Paul's head.

I mean, I know that our brains don't perceive the world, they model it. But I am curious how it all must seem to him.

Mind you, I'm also curious how the world must seem to a dog.

Spearthrower wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Bullshit.

Theistic evolution requires a belief that a god is running things. You aren’t the only person with the internets, you know.

He wrote words, and that appears to entail also lying when it comes to Paul.

Evolution . A child's definition granted

noun
ev·​o·​lu·​tion ˌev-ə-ˈlü-shən, ˌē-və-
1
a
: a process of change in a certain direction
especially : a process of constant change from a lower or simple state to a higher or complex state : GROWTH
b
: something evolved
2
: the process of working out or developing
3
a
: the process by which new species or populations of living things develop from preexisting forms through successive generations
b
: the scientific theory explaining the appearance of new species and varieties through the action of various biological mechanisms (as natural selection or genetic mutation)
evolutionary
-shə-ˌner-ē
adjective

....

Good enough to teach a child. The "process of evolution. Good enough to be treated as science.

My position is very clear. I agree with Charles Darwin, Evolution is a process.

Etymology of the word. Victorian slang for the "process". Modern day slang for life sciences and biology. Clearly.

Mine is to place phenominon into context. whilst everone else resorts to slang termonology mine is to define.

What is Evolution?

Paul.

Search for a word
uber-
/ˈuːbə/
combining form
denoting an outstanding or supreme example of a particular kind of person or thing.
"an audience composed largely of ubergeeks"
to a great or extreme degree.
"an uber-cool bar"

TopCat wrote:Providing there was someone to pull me back out again after a few minutes, I have to say it would be fascinating to experience perceiving the world from inside Paul's head.

I mean, I know that our brains don't perceive the world, they model it. But I am curious how it all must seem to him.

Mind you, I'm also curious how the world must seem to a dog.

Welcome to the ubercool bar top cat.

What do you know?

Paul.

Paul ... Do snowflakes replicate?

The quest for a coherent response from Paul continues. My great grandpapi once told me the tale, though he wasn't alive when this crusade began. He lost a lot of friends on this battlefield.