SFarrisTheGr8 Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Maybe you need to clarify your position. It "sounds" like you are saying that their is an intelligience behind our evolution. That is the only way it can't be mere chance we have gotten this far. Generally people consider an intelligience of that sort to "God". Maybe you think it is some other powerful being like God I don't know but you can't have it both ways. Either at the core of it it's basically up to chance or it is being controlled by something with a plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFarrisTheGr8 Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 It's not that I don't care about facts or being honest it's that I don't care about YOU. While I was reading your post I learned all I needed to know. That you are basically a know-it-all who thinks he is never wrong, even when he is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFarrisTheGr8 Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 If I'm wrong I'm sorry but you will have to show me I'm wrong you haven't done that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Maybe you need to clarify your position. It "sounds" like you are saying that their is an intelligience behind our evolution. I have said NOTHING that states or implies that. SFarrisTheGr8: That is the only way it can't be mere chance we have gotten this far. No, NATURAL SELECTION. I guess I've got to tell you what I've been telling Biochemist: do us all a favor and learn at least something about evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 It's not that I don't care about facts or being honest it's that I don't care about YOU. While I was reading your post I learned all I needed to know. That you are basically a know-it-all who thinks he is never wrong, even when he is. So besides basically calling me an idiot and completely misrepresenting me in your first post, you now launch a direct personal attack! Damn you're off to a piss-poor start here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 If I'm wrong I'm sorry but you will have to show me I'm wrong you haven't done that. No, YOU show us that you are RIGHT! You are the one who claims I said something I didn't. You have the burden of proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Unless you can say that looking into the primordial soup as life first formed that it would evolve the way it has then it is by mere chance that we made it this far. Nope, wrongo. Natural selection isn't random, and it helped us make it this far. So it wasn't MERE chance. Do you know what the word MERE implies? Do you know anything about evolution and NATURAL selection? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFarrisTheGr8 Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 I think I'll stick with my previous thought.."Whatever". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Let’s see how smart and honest SFarrisTheGr8 is being. SFarrisTheGr8: If [TeleMad] believes in God and what not he should just say so. I could respect that. After all that is what he is saying more or less Where the hell did he come up with that? He said he read through the thread before posting. Well, let’s look at some of my statements from this very thread, all of which were made before SFarrisTheGr8 posted. Gee, you think this might be a clue that I’m not arguing FOR God, but instead AGAINST? TeleMad: Yeah, God showed us that it is moral and righteous to kill someone's children, at least if doing so tests to see if the parent truly loves us. That's what God allowed Satan to do to Job to test Job's love for Him. Gee, you think this might be a clue that I’m arguing that NATURE, and NOT God, is what provides direction to evolution? TeleMad: *****************************Biochemist: If [natural selection] is directed, please identify what or whom was supplying the direction. ***************************** It's kind of in the name ... NATURE. Gee, you think this might be a clue that I’m arguing that NATURE, the ENVIRONMENT – NOT God - is what provides direction to evolution. TeleMad: Mutations are random with respect to fitness. There's your randomness. As we see with eyes of cave-dwelling fish, or the vestigial pelvic girdle of whales, and the wings of flightless birds, once functional constraint is removed for a structure natural selection no longer constrains the randomness: it takes over and the structure 'deteoriates'. But when the structure is under functional constraint - because it IS beneficial to survival and reproductive success - then natural selection does pull in the reins on randomness. The underlying randomness is still there, but the environment superimposes a direction by tending to eliminate the deleterious and retaining the beneficial. It’s crystal clear that SFarrisTheGr8 doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He has completely mangled my position, then called me an idiot when he doesn't even understand what I am saying. I’ve pointed out his errors and he won’t apologize or acknowledge them, but instead launches a direct personal attack against me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeleMad Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Still can't figure out how the hell SFarrisTheGre8 could be so wrong. Maybe SFarrisTheGre8 doesn't know that NATURAL selection - a term I used at least twice when expressing my position - does NOT involve a God, but nature only. Guess it's time for me to teach someone else something about evolution. ”Several writers have misapprehended or objected to the term Natural Selection. ... Others have objected that the term selection implies conscious choice in the animals which become modified; and it has even been urged that, as plants have no volition, natural selection is not applicable to them! In the literal sense of the word, no doubt, natural selection is a false term; but who ever objected to chemists speaking of the elective affinities of the various elements? – and yet an acid cannot strictly be said to elect the base with which it in preference combines. It has been said that I speak of natural selection as an active power or Deity; but who objects to an author speaking of the attraction of gravity as ruling the movements of the planets? Every one knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions; and they are almost necessary for brevity. So again it is difficult to avoid personifying the word Nature; but I mean by Nature, only the aggregate action and product of many natural laws, and by laws the sequence of events as ascertained by us. With a little familiarity such superficial objection will be forgotten.” (bold emphasis added, Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection Or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, The Modern Library, 1998, p109) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 So I guess you are calling me an idiot. Clearly, TM is not looking for an argument. He is looking for a fight. In this example, since you would not call him an idiot (and clearly, you did not), he called himself an idiot for you. Quite kind of him, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 I think I'll stick with my previous thought.."Whatever". This is probably a good approach. By the way, welcome to the site. Nice handle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Clearly, TM is not looking for an argument. He is looking for a fight. In this example, since you would not call him an idiot (and clearly, you did not), he called himself an idiot for you. Quite kind of him, really. Arguments are a part of debates, insults are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Telemad..is well..obviously looking for an argument and doesn't care if he is right or wrong. At least I hope so or else he is an idiot. Are you debating or insulting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 I think I'll stick with my previous thought.."Whatever". SFTGr8- I responded to this message before I read TM's response to me in post 43. You will note that he responds that Natural Selection is directed by Nature. A specious tautology in response to a direct question. The only way I can interpet "nature" (capitalized) is the way that you did. It looks like TM is a theist, but won't specificy that element in his argument. Nor will he refute it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biochemist Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 Are you debating or insulting? C1ay- I really think I ought to defend SFTGr8 here. TM has been a little bit caustic and circumferential in this post. It is a challenge to disagree with TM without getting personally attacked. I have counted about a half dozen folks (certainly including me) that he has included as targets. And I have only been on the site a week or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C1ay Posted March 20, 2005 Report Share Posted March 20, 2005 C1ay- I really think I ought to defend SFTGr8 here. TM has been a little bit caustic and circumferential in this post. It is a challenge to disagree with TM without getting personally attacked. I have counted about a half dozen folks (certainly including me) that he has included as targets. And I have only been on the site a week or two. If he has insulted you then you are correct in calling it an attack. I have reread the thread though and could not see where TM resorted to name calling, SFTGr8 did. If he has simply called on you to support your position then it is not an attack. FWIW, It looks to me like SFTGr8 has simply declared TM's position unworthy of consideration while providing no support for his/her own position. That is inconsistent with the posted FAQ at the top of the forum. I'm only trying to steer the discussion back on topic and away from the atmosphere it is creating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.