toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

[7djengo7]

Meanwhile, science moves on regardless.

That, of course, is an assumption :chuckle:

Though, it is an assumption of truth, considering that what Arthur Brain is calling "science" is a cloud of pompous nonsense and falsehood. And, it's a sad truth; Arthur Brain and many others intend to move on with their fairy tales, regardless that they are at war with truth and logic in so moving on.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I, having never played Call Of Duty, nor watched anybody play Call Of Duty, nor listened to, nor read, anything about how to play Call Of Duty, am nevertheless certain that I'm already far, far better at Call Of Duty than you will ever be at your attempts to save face from your embarrassment due to the fact of your manifest inability to deal with these questions:

Mario kart?

1. Q. What is the cause of species?
   A. __________ is the cause of species.
2. Q. Evolution is the cause of what?
   A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

Even by your particular choice of emoji, here, have you further advertised the futility of your attempts to save face for yourself. Why, that's quite a nasty shiner you gave yourself, sir.

I have no need to "save face". As has been pointed out to you numerous times already, evolution is not the cause of the origination of life. Nowhere will you find evolution as being the answer as to how life started on this planet, unlike your silly assertion in your OP and your misguided attempts to mock the person who was simply telling you the truth. Species evolve, not the same thing as evolution being the actual cause of life. This is basics 101 and you only embarrass yourself when you refuse to acknowledge your mistake but keep digging dude...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Though, it is an assumption of truth, considering that what Arthur Brain is calling "science" is a cloud of pompous nonsense and falsehood. And, it's a sad truth; Arthur Brain and many others intend to move on with their fairy tales, regardless that they are at war with truth and logic in so moving on.

That's almost hilariously ironic.

 

[7djengo7]

"What is evolution the cause of" is a pretty daft question to start with. Evolution is categorically not the cause of life itself.

Here, you proudly acknowledge that I asked you that question, and that you cannot answer it--advertising, thereby, that you know as well as I that your indoctrination has stopped short of providing you the ability to meaningfully fill in the blank:


Q. Evolution is the cause of what?
A. Evolution is the cause of __________.


Here's another fun question for you to stonewall against, quite akin to the one above:


Q. Is evolution the cause of anything? Yes or No?


Obviously, if you answer "No. Evolution is not the cause of anything," then you promptly damn whatever it is you imagine you call "evolution" as necessarily useless and irrelevant to science, which is kinda heavy on the topic of causes and effects in nature.

And, if you answer, "Yes. Evolution is the cause of something," then, that big, bad, bold-faced question you've been stonewalling against comes right back into your lap:


Since you say that evolution is the cause of something, then of what do you say evolution is the cause? Evolution is the cause of __________???

See, Arthur Brain, that is why you will continue to stonewall against the questions I've been asking you. That is why you will keep trying to change the subject to video games, or some other irrelevant thing, rather than try to answer the questions I have repeatedly asked you, and which you've never answered:

1. Q. What is the cause of species?
   A. __________ is the cause of species.
2. Q. Evolution is the cause of what?
   A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Unreal. Even when shown to be completely in error, you still persist in digging an even deeper hole. Your OP is bunk. Evolution is not the cause of life. Reign in that ego of yours for a minute, calm down and accept you dropped the ball on this. You're not the first to make the same mistake and you won't be the last. Most people drop it when shown the mistake and so should you.

Learn from it and keep your criticisms of evolution to what's actually relevant and not what you imagine evolution to be.

 

[7djengo7]

As has been pointed out to you numerous times already, evolution is not the cause of the origination of life.

But, again, you fail to answer the question:

Q. Of what (if anything) is evolution the cause?
A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

Species evolve,

It's interesting that, here, you say that "species evolve", whereas, below, you said that "life evolves":

life evolves

Is life species, or is life not species? Which is the case?

And, if you would say that life is not species, then which would you say started evolving first: life, or species?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Unreal.

What's unreal is your repeated refusal to answer the questions GO 7D is asking you.

Your OP is bunk. Evolution is not the cause of life.

We're 85 posts beyond the OP now, Arty. How about you get with the program and focus on the current issue, rather than ignoring the questions you have been asked.

Simply fill in the blanks. That's all there is to it.

1. Q. What is the cause of species?
   A. __________ is the cause of species.
2. Q. Evolution is the cause of what?
   A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

 

[Arthur Brain]

What's unreal is your repeated refusal to answer the questions GO is asking you.



We're 85 posts beyond the OP now, Arty. How about you get with the program and focus on the current issue, rather than ignoring the questions you have been asked.

Simply fill in the blanks. That's all there is to it.

Are you kidding me? He's perpetuating the same stuff that is completely debunked from the OP itself in some bizarre attempt to try to justify it. Evolutionary theory is not about the origination of life. End of.

For any queries then read the following:

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

 

[7djengo7]

Evolution is not the cause of life.

Perhaps you could say that with relevance to someone who says "Evolution is the cause of life." I, for one, have never said that, and never will say that, so your thus remarking to me is quite irrelevant.

It's amusing, though, that you've just admitted that evolution is not the cause of human life, nor of bird life, nor of daffodil life, nor of microbial life, nor of quadruped life, nor of ant life, nor of chimpanzee life, nor of elephant life, nor of any other life that can be named. You've just admitted that evolution is not the cause of your life.

Your Darwinist cheerleader language game is causing you to make a monkey of yourself, Arthur Brain.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Perhaps you could say that with relevance to someone who says "Evolution is the cause of life." I, for one, have never said that, and never will say that, so your thus remarking to me is quite irrelevant.

It's amusing, though, that you've just admitted that evolution is not the cause of human life, nor of bird life, nor of daffodil life, nor of microbial life, nor of quadruped life, nor of ant life, nor of chimpanzee life, nor of elephant life, nor of any other life that can be named. You've just admitted that evolution is not the cause of your life.

Your Darwinist cheerleader language game is causing you to make a monkey of yourself, Arthur Brain.

Nobody who is educated or familiar with the theory of evolution would be so ignorant as to state that it has anything to do with the beginning of life itself. You tried to mock someone who was simply stating a fact in your OP. That's all on you.

 

[7djengo7]

Evolutionary theory is not about the origination of life.

Since what you refer to by the phrase, "evolutionary theory", is no more than a cloud of pompous nonsense, "evolutionary theory" is not about anything. Period.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Since what you refer to by the phrase, "evolutionary theory", is no more than a cloud of pompous nonsense, "evolutionary theory" is not about anything. Period.

Not to people who actually understand what it's about it isn't.

 

[7djengo7]

Nobody who is educated or familiar with the theory of evolution would be so ignorant as to state that it has anything to do with the beginning of life itself. You tried to mock someone who was simply stating a fact in your OP. That's all on you.

I am, however, "educated or familiar with" the cloud of nonsense that you are calling "the theory of evolution"--thanks to efforts (antics) of the likes of you, Professor, and the many other Darwin cheerleaders whom I've happened to observe in the repetitive performance of y'all's formulaic routines. That's why I've been able so easily to use your own, habitual language games against you: all I have needed to do, and been doing, is simply to display your incoherence pitted against itself, and what, then, can you do? Oh, I know what you can do, because it's all you can do, and have been doing, as a Darwin cheerleader: recycle and repeat your own self-damning incoherence, until you fizzle out. And, of course, that is a dismal state of affairs that you are clinging to, and is certainly not the least bit of an answer to my challenge. You fail. Again, and again, and again...

I stated fact in my OP, and I certainly was not mocking myself for stating it.

At least once, earlier in this thread, I asked you what (if anything) you mean by your phrase, "life itself", which you've just now, once again, used. Why can you not tell me what (if anything) you mean by "life itself"?

Is "life itself" life, or not? Is "life itself" something other than life? Are species "life itself", or not? Is "life itself" species, or not?

When you're triggered by such challenges, your only recourse is pathetic: you try to outsource the task of answering to somebody other than yourself--wikipedia, for instance--as if they (who are not you) are going to somehow (in what they've already published, some time ago) be able to say what (if anything) you--right here, right now--mean by the things you say. You may as well just say, in so many words, "Look, I'm in over my head, here, and I can't even hope to answer your challenges," because that is exactly the message you are sending, loudly and clearly, by such burden-shifting ploys. But, your arrogant pride will never let you come out and say it in so many words, because you will continue to operate in a mode of trying to save face--not that you're unique in this, by any means, among other Darwin cheerleaders. And, even if your pride did, somehow, simmer down enough to let you say it, you'd still only be stating the obvious.

 

[7djengo7]

Not to people who actually understand what it's about it isn't.

Nonsense is nonsense to everybody. Nobody understands nonsense, because nonsense is not about anything. Thus, not only do I not understand the nonsense you call "evolutionary theory", but Arthur Brain, Darwin, Dawkins, The Barbarian, and everybody else, also do not understand the nonsense you call "evolutionary theory." Your (and Darwin's, Dawkins', Gould's, The Barbarian's, and many others') severe handicap is that you're all under the delusion that you can, and do, understand the nonsense you call "the theory of evolution", and you are proud of your delusion.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I am, however, "educated or familiar with" the cloud of nonsense that you are calling "the theory of evolution"--thanks to efforts (antics) of the likes of you, Professor, and the many other Darwin cheerleaders whom I've happened to observe in the repetitive performance of y'all's formulaic routines. That's why I've been able so easily to use your own, habitual language games against you: all I have needed to do, and been doing, is simply to display your incoherence pitted against itself, and what, then, can you do? Oh, I know what you can do, because it's all you can do, and have been doing, as a Darwin cheerleader: recycle and repeat your own self-damning incoherence, until you fizzle out. And, of course, that is a dismal state of affairs that you are clinging to, and is certainly not the least bit of an answer to my challenge. You fail. Again, and again, and again...

I stated fact in my OP, and I certainly was not mocking myself for stating it.

At least once, earlier in this thread, I asked you what (if anything) you mean by your phrase, "life itself", which you've just now, once again, used. Why can you not tell me what (if anything) you mean by "life itself"?

Is "life itself" life, or not? Is "life itself" something other than life? Are species "life itself", or not? Is "life itself" species, or not?

When you're triggered by such challenges, your only recourse is pathetic: you try to outsource the task of answering to somebody other than yourself--wikipedia, for instance--as if they (who are not you) are going to somehow (in what they've already published, some time ago) be able to say what (if anything) you--right here, right now--mean by the things you say. You may as well just say, in so many words, "Look, I'm in over my head, here, and I can't even hope to answer your challenges," because that is exactly the message you are sending, loudly and clearly, by such burden-shifting ploys. But, your arrogant pride will never let you come out and say it in so many words, because you will continue to operate in a mode of trying to save face--not that you're unique in this, by any means, among other Darwin cheerleaders. And, even if your pride did, somehow, simmer down enough to let you say it, you'd still only be stating the obvious.

Well, you obviously aren't too familiar with it or have any particular understanding of it, otherwise you wouldn't have made such an obvious gaffe with your opening post. You attempted to mock someone who was simply stating fact, of which you were obviously unaware. If you had such understanding (as you claim) you wouldn't have started this thread to begin with.

It backfired on you and what have you got? Oh, a whole load of "Darwin cheerleader" garbage and ironically, a whole load of puffed up, self impressed pompous nonsense.

You dropped the ball. Just pick it up.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Nonsense is nonsense to everybody. Nobody understands nonsense, because nonsense is not about anything. Thus, not only do I not understand the nonsense you call "evolutionary theory", but Arthur Brain, Darwin, Dawkins, The Barbarian, and everybody else, also do not understand the nonsense you call "evolutionary theory." Your (and Darwin's, Dawkins', Gould's, The Barbarian's, and many others') severe handicap is that you're all under the delusion that you can, and do, understand the nonsense you call "the theory of evolution", and you are proud of your delusion.

Well, you certainly don't understand evolutionary theory, you've made that more than clear already. You really shouldn't even comment on it dude.

 

[7djengo7]

Well, you obviously aren't too familiar with it or have any particular understanding of it, otherwise you wouldn't have made such an obvious gaffe with your opening post. You attempted to mock someone who was simply stating fact, of which you were obviously unaware. If you had such understanding (as you claim) you wouldn't have started this thread to begin with.

It backfired on you and what have you got? Oh, a whole load of "Darwin cheerleader" garbage and ironically, a whole load of puffed up, self impressed pompous nonsense.

You dropped the ball. Just pick it up.

Hehehe. You lose, again.

Here are two of the questions you've persisted in stonewalling against:

Q. What is the cause of species? A. __________ is the cause of species. Q. Evolution is the cause of what? A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

Why can't you answer them? Just dedicate a post, in this thread, to copying/pasting the exact, unaltered text in that box, only replacing the blank underscores with your answers to the questions. Why can you not do that, Professor? I've made it as simple for you as a child's activity sheet on the back of Cap'n Crunch or a Denny's menu. You're the teacher, and I'm the student, yet you refuse to teach what you profess to be expert on. Don't you want to educate me? Do you imagine that those questions are going to go away because you persist in stonewalling against them?

By stonewalling against these questions, yet continuing to post your noise in this thread, you are merely trolling. Are you not a troll? Then answer the questions.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hehehe. You lose, again.

Here are two of the questions you've persisted in stonewalling against:

Q. What is the cause of species? A. __________ is the cause of species. Q. Evolution is the cause of what? A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

Why can't you answer them? Just dedicate a post, in this thread, to copying/pasting the exact, unaltered text in that box, only replacing the blank underscores with your answers to the questions. Why can you not do that, Professor? I've made it as simple for you as a child's activity sheet on the back of Cap'n Crunch or a Denny's menu. You're the teacher, and I'm the student, yet you refuse to teach what you profess to be expert on. Don't you want to educate me? Do you imagine that those questions are going to go away because you persist in stonewalling against them?

By stonewalling against these questions, yet continuing to post your noise in this thread, you are merely trolling. Are you not a troll? Then answer the questions.

Your whole thread was ridiculous to start with. You asininely attempted to mock someone (whoever it was) who was absolutely correct in that evolution is not the cause of life itself. Since then, instead of acknowledging such a basic error of misunderstanding, you've compounded it with juvenile attempts at deflection and insult. You don't even understand the basics of the theory of evolution and dismiss it as "nonsense" with nothing in support.

If you were honest with yourself you would see how much you've messed up with your own OP, but that's not too likely is it?

 

[7djengo7]

Your whole thread was ridiculous to start with. You asininely attempted to mock someone (whoever it was) who was absolutely correct in that evolution is not the cause of life itself. Since then, instead of acknowledging such a basic error of misunderstanding, you've compounded it with juvenile attempts at deflection and insult. You don't even understand the basics of the theory of evolution and dismiss it as "nonsense" with nothing in support.

If you were honest with yourself you would see how much you've messed up with your own OP, but that's not too likely is it?

Sorry. You fail, again.

Try. (Not "Try again," but "Try, for the first time.")

1. Q. What is the cause of species?
   A. __________ is the cause of species.
2. Q. Evolution is the cause of what?
   A. Evolution is the cause of __________.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Um, no. Your thread from the get go was a fail. Educate yourself about evolution and you won't embarrass yourself as you did at the start. Or carry on as you will. Past caring at this point...