lol.....

[Timshel]

so the problem isn't the randomness, but the sheerness......since you think you see what causes the change, and can (admittedly after the fact) "predict" the change you argue it isn't "sheer random chance".....I guess its visible random chance instead......

No, dumbass. I have made myself perfectly clear and there is no need for you restate other than to create a strawman. There are factors that happen by chance and factors that are causal. Over time the causal factors play a bigger role which can give the appearance of design.

Listen chickenshit... if you want to admit causation plays a role then we can forego your attempts to slime your way out of it with your usual spineless semantic games. But then that does not explain this thread.

shit happens but it happens a lot better when it is caused.....

You are so stupid. You meant to say "... better when it is designed." Cause could apply to either explanation.

You don't have a clue about what you are criticizing. Among those that reproduce sexually, speciation does not happen in one individual it happens among a population. Really, you should do a little research and quit making an ass of yourself.

lol....no evolution is NOT "caused".....evolution is sheer random chance.....

Clearly you were trying to claim that evolution leaves no room for causation and happens by nothing other than (or sheer) random chance.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

There are factors that happen by chance and factors that are causal.

caused by other random shit happening....

Listen chickenshit... if you want to admit causation plays a role

are you kidding?.....I'm the one who thinks its ALL caused......that's what intelligent design is all about.... you're the one who denies a Causer......

 

[Timshel]

caused by other random shit happening....

It's causal. One thing happens (cause) and then another thing happens (effect) according to certain laws of nature and factors that make the effect predictable. What don't you get? You are apparently misunderstanding causal to mean purposeful or intentional.

are you kidding?.....I'm the one who thinks its ALL caused......that's what intelligent design is all about.... you're the one who denies a Causer......

Which is why I pointed out that what you really meant was "designed" and not "caused." Causality can apply to both and plays a significant role in theories of evolution and speciation. The theories are not dependent on the idea that it happens by sheer (nothing other than) random chance.

Causality does not require a conscious "causer." Intelligent design does not differ from evolution on the idea of causality, but on what the cause is. You believe there is a designer, or a conscious cause, while evolution does not require a conscious cause.

 

[Timshel]

are you kidding?.....I'm the one who thinks its ALL caused......that's what intelligent design is all about.... you're the one who denies a Causer......

If you want to admit causation plays a role in evolution and speciation or in the theories describing it we can end this. You claim it is all caused (you mean designed), while claiming evolution rejects cause and is impossible, while claiming you accept evolution. Your wall of bullshit is crumbling. You deny evolution and causality for the supernatural powers of a designer.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You are apparently misunderstanding causal to mean purposeful or intentional.

its no misunderstanding.....it IS what it means....you apparently are thinking of reaction.......

while evolution does not require a conscious cause.

of course not, it's just random shit happening.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You claim it is all caused (you mean designed), while claiming evolution rejects cause and is impossible, while claiming you accept evolution.

that pretty much covers it, except for the impossibility of evolution.....obviously evolution is possible and even demonstrable....because shit does in fact, happen......

 

[Timshel]

You once again drop context. You can't respond to a complete point in context because you are too busy looking for some way to worm out of your mistakes. This is why you were thread banned and will continue to be.

its no misunderstanding.....it IS what it means....you apparently are thinking of reaction.......

I am talking about cause and effect and gave the definition of it.

of course not, it's just random shit happening.....

It is not just random shit happening, moron. The study in the article shows that cause and effect relationships occur in a way that makes the evolutionary process happen in a repeatable fashion.

that pretty much covers it, except for the impossibility of evolution.....obviously evolution is possible and even demonstrable....because shit does in fact, happen......

Then how is it that you claim to accept evolution? If it was all caused but evolution does not work based on cause but sheer (nothing other than) random chance, then you must reject evolution.

You claimed that evolution submits that individuals evolve alone which you said was impossible. Therefore you are claiming that speciation/evolution is impossible. You say that while simultaneously claiming that speciation occurred among felines from one feline Noah brought on the Ark.

You can't make two post without contradicting yourself, ditzyduece.

it would be more stupid to believe that two humans happened to evolve at the same time and in the same place....I mean "shit happens" but how much shit do you expect to actually happen.....

LOL. Speciation does not occur in one single individual alone, you fucking moron. That could not possibly work for a species dependent on sexual reproduction. You quite clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about. Nothing new, though.

/grins...good, we both agree that speciation could not work....we're making progress.....

If you are going to continue to respond like a dishonest coward, cutting my responses so that they seem to imply something other than intended, then there really is not much point in continuing this.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

This is why you were thread banned and will continue to be.

then go away and let me continue laughing at you.....but remember you were the intellectual coward, not me.....

I am talking about cause and effect and gave the definition of it.

and I am talking about cause and effect and gave the definition of it./...

It is not just random shit happening, moron. The study in the article shows that cause and effect relationships occur in a way that makes the evolutionary process happen in a repeatable fashion.

no, the study in the article demonstrates that two species effected by the same random shit happening reacted in the same way......

Then how is it that you claim to accept evolution? If it was all caused but evolution does not work based on cause but sheer (nothing other than) random chance, then you must reject evolution.

lol, no....I merely reject what YOU believe about evolution.....when a species is affected by its environment and reacts in adaptation, it evolves.....what's not to believe?....

You claimed that evolution submits that individuals evolve alone which you said was impossible.

first of all I never claimed that individuals could evolve......reproduction would require two.....I'm pretty sure I pointed out your error on that in the previous thread....

Therefore you are claiming that speciation/evolution is impossible.

just the opposite....I said evolution explained how various felines could result from a single feline type.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

boy, talk about an intellectual coward.....you take a quote of what I said here and carry it over to a thread I am banned from to respond to it?......you should change your name to Professor Ball-less.......

 

[Timshel]

then go away and let me continue laughing at you.....but remember you were the intellectual coward, not me.....


and I am talking about cause and effect and gave the definition of it./...


no, the study in the article demonstrates that two species effected by the same random shit happening reacted in the same way......


lol, no....I merely reject what YOU believe about evolution.....when a species is affected by its environment and reacts in adaptation, it evolves.....what's not to believe?....


first of all I never claimed that individuals could evolve......reproduction would require two.....I'm pretty sure I pointed out your error on that in the previous thread....


just the opposite....I said evolution explained how various felines could result from a single feline type.......

You have already ran away, coward.

You gave no definition of causality. You are talking about design.

Yes, they reacted in the same way which establish causality. It's not sheer random chance.

You reject evolution. Evolution is not simple adaptation. We have been discussing speciation or macroevolution. Tigers and house cats are not the same species, moron.

You stated what I quoted and I corrected your error about evolution.

You never explained how various felines could result from a single species. You contradict the idea that it is possible by claiming adaptation is the limit of evolution.

 

[Timshel]

boy, talk about an intellectual coward.....you take a quote of what I said here and carry it over to a thread I am banned from to respond to it?......you should change your name to Professor Ball-less.......

You were banned because you won't actually discuss but will troll and spam the threads. I gave you the opportunity to engage here and as usual you have shown yourself to be a spineless scumbag.

You have had countless opportunities to explain your understanding of evolutionary theory, how it amounts to sheer random chance and your own ideas of how "adaptation" accounts for variety in felines. You respond with nothing but vague nonsense and equivocation when pressed.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You reject evolution. Evolution is not simple adaptation. We have been discussing speciation or macroevolution.

I don't reject evolution because evolution, as science has observed it, IS simple adaptation......I reject macro-evolution because it is what people like you PRETEND science says about evolution.......it has, in fact, never been scientifically proved.....nor can it ever be......

You never explained how various felines could result from a single species.

you require proof of what you yourself believe occurs through the process of evolution?.....a strain of feline enters an isolated area where it experiences a different environment.....it adapts to that environment......a different type of feline results......

interestingly, with an Intelligent Designer involved it wouldn't have to take ten thousand generations.......just the touch of a divine finger on the DNA in utero and it could happen in a single gestation......simple observation shows you how much time can be saved when a Causer gets involved.....why, just in the last five thousand years or so, some small wild feline has been adapted by human manipulation into thousands of different varieties of housecat......think of what could be accomplished by a Causer who could manipulate the DNA with a thought......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You were banned because you won't actually discuss but will troll and spam the threads. I gave you the opportunity to engage here and as usual you have shown yourself to be a spineless scumbag.

You have had countless opportunities to explain your understanding of evolutionary theory, how it amounts to sheer random chance and your own ideas of how "adaptation" accounts for variety in felines. You respond with nothing but vague nonsense and equivocation when pressed.

????....I assume from this you don't actually take the time to read anything I post?.......

 

[Timshel]

I don't reject evolution because evolution, as science has observed it, IS simple adaptation......I reject macro-evolution because it is what people like you PRETEND science says about evolution.......it has, in fact, never been scientifically proved.....nor can it ever be......


you require proof of what you yourself believe occurs through the process of evolution?.....a strain of feline enters an isolated area where it experiences a different environment.....it adapts to that environment......a different type of feline results......

interestingly, with an Intelligent Designer involved it wouldn't have to take ten thousand generations.......just the touch of a divine finger on the DNA in utero and it could happen in a single gestation......simple observation shows you how much time can be saved when a Causer gets involved.....why, just in the last five thousand years or so, some small wild feline has been adapted by human manipulation into thousands of different varieties of housecat......think of what could be accomplished by a Causer who could manipulate the DNA with a thought......

You reject evolution, but are too cowardly to say as much and so you dishonestly use it to represent your acceptance of simple adaptation. But then you use that to ignorantly claim that it explains differences between house cats and tigers. Division into these different types of felines is macroevolution, which you dishonestly redefine, without specificity, as some form speciation at a higher level in the hierarchy of evolution or tree of life.

Your use of the designer is lazy not interesting and demonstrates your wholesale rejection of science. Science is not about saving time and finding shortcuts too the tough questions.

 

[evince]

they only like science when it suits them

 

[evince]

its the same at the austrian school of economics and how they feel about real numbers

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You reject evolution

lol....even though I have said half a dozen times that I don't reject evolution....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

they only like science when it suits them

I will admit to finding that what science says suits me.....

 

[Timshel]

lol....even though I have said half a dozen times that I don't reject evolution....

You say that then reject it and claim that there is only simple adaptation. You are intellectually dishonest and a coward.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You say that then reject it and claim that there is only simple adaptation. You are intellectually dishonest and a coward.

not at all....I have stated what I believe and I have defended it consistently......the fact that you find what I believe to be incomprehensible only speaks to your lack of comprehension,,,,,,