Please provide a source reference for your "one creature "guaranteed" to always survive" statement.
Since there's unanimous desire among evolutionists to see common knowledge presented, and since presenting it will serve to further demonstrate just how stupid evolutionism gets people to become; I am seriously considering doing just as you both suggest.
Since it is my question to which you gave this response, I have to conclude that you are calling me stupid. I am registering my complaint to the moderator of this forum concerning your constant maligning of my intelligence and character.
You have pretty much agreed that it is stupid to think any lifeform is guaranteed to survive or guaranteed to be selected. We all know there are people who believe exactly such. There is no doubt that they exist, yet you ask me to prove that these stupid evolutionists exist. I acknowledged your request. How do you get from that to calling you "stupid"? Your request is stupid, and the people in question are stupid.
The only way to get there comes later. If you weren't just saying the 8 to 12 were dead to be saying it, but because you believe the evogoddess automatically slays mutants no matter what. If you mean that I called a group stupid and then discovered you were a member... how can that be helped? It's not like you didn't say quite a few things to exclude yourself from that group, now.
Now to answer the statement. The theory of evolution and the mechanisms by which it is considered to occur are recorded in papers and books written by evolution biologists. I am not one. Linda is not one. I don't think RAZD is one either. Certainly most of the people you read on forums such as this are not evolution biologists. If you want to say that "the theory of evolution" says this or "the theory of evolution says that" you need to provide a source for your statement.
This is a logical fallacy. You intend to require evidence which does not and cannot exist. There is no "pope" of evolutionism. The only recognized prophet was dead wrong, so much so that the religion has changed and nobody takes his writings seriously any more, except symbolically.
There is no text which officially documents the beliefs of evolutionism, so asking me to prove the religion officially says one thing or another is a logical fallacy.
Otherwise your statement isn't worth the pixels it is printed with.
I am allowed to bear witness to that which I have seen and heard. It is your objection which isn't worth pixels.
Naturally, I'll begin my search with the usual suspects & work outwards. I may not have time to do much responding to other ...'stuff', I suppose, is the polite term.
We'll see how the priorities go. I have to moderate, and I don't plan to let anything important slip by. If the project proves boring or impractical I'll give up on it. I know what I've seen. You all know you've seen the same thing countless times; and it's just a matter of locating it. Everyone knows.
But I can comply with silly suggestions when it promises to be fun.
Yes, maybe you will start actually answering questions when it becomes fun for you. I'm still waiting for your definition of "harmful mutation".
And you know why. My patience is finite.
Who are these "some" that say these things...people you interviewed on the street?
Haven't conducted many street interviews. Just stuck with the same encounters everyone else has had.
Not street interviews...forum interviews!! Note the lack of substantiation with scientific publications.
Ah right. Do any of those contain the "official" version of evolutionism? There is no such thing. If you don't hold to a particular belief, you shouldn't be upset when it's debunked.
But we see your response.
Perhaps a quote from an actual science publication or an actual biologist would be more appropriate here.
Well, now. That's a worthy goal: find an actual evopro saying such stuff. There is a bit of a problem: lots of posers on the forums. Oh, but you can't admit to their existence either - I forgot. Makes it a little easier for me.
I never claimed to be an "evopro" so I guess I am not one of the posers you are referring to. Since you can't find a professional evolution biologist on a forum then perhaps you should research elsewhere before you assume that wild statements on a forum constitute professional conclusions.
Huh? So all LindaLou's talk about the vast knowledge I miss out on when I don't buy Dr.Adequate's and jar's and all such stories is just empty? Cool! I didn't believe them anyhow.
By definition, improving survival chance by a whole percentage point means the selection god(ess) has only one chance in 100 of getting it "right". 1/10 of 1% reduces this to one chance in 1000.
Now if you call them on it, most often they'll say "Oh yes, it could take 3 or 4 generations, but..." Nonsense! No thinking person can believe you'll hit a 1 in 1000 shot in 3 or 4 tries, and this overlooks the fact that in the case of a defect, the defect is being reproduced.
Again a reference for your quote regarding this miniscule amount of "tries" would be good here since it is in quote marks. Otherwise the only "Nonsense!" is your assumption.
Actually, looking at this again, this is even sillier. You ask for a "reference for my quote", but I wasn't directly quoting an individual. The reference is myself, as this is my testimony. Your own experience confirms it, as you've made abundantly clear.
We have also seen crazy stuff provided by professed Christians on these and other forums...stuff that you would never agree with. Would it then be valid if I then quote them and say that 'Christianity means this' and 'Christians believe that' as if these people were venerated theologists? No it would not be valid. However, that is essencially what you are doing here. Perhaps you should raise your research standards.
There's a big difference. Christians have a Bible. Practically anyone can identify an heretic if they try.
And the church has, since the time of the Apostles been infiltrated by agents of the enemy. Everyone knows this.
You misportray things when you say "quote them and say that "Christianity means this" and "Christians believe that" as if these people were venerated theologists?" Have I in any way indicated I was talking about venerated evolutionary atheologists? I don't think so.
Not so. The classic definitions of all terms, definitions well-established and recognized throughout the English-speaking world, work perfectly well.
Incorrect. Terms used in a theory must be defined. The theory of relativity has words that mean a particular thing within the framework of that theory. The theory of evolution is the same way.
This is false. Evolutionists - professional ones - employ all their terms with variable meanings. There is not even a single standard version of the "theory" itself, and never has been. Not even Darwin penned one. It can be confusing as all get-out for the unprepared. They use three definitions of 'mutation' alone, so much so that many of their writings appear to directly contradict each other when this may or may not be the case.
I have made clear that I use the classic English definitions. That excludes last week's fad evohype bar-lowering, obfuscation-promoting twist.
If you are criticizing the theory of evolution then you need to use the same definitions that they use. Otherwise you are not really criticing evolution.
Baloney! I can express myself using any terms I choose. If what I say is valid, it's valid. If it ain't, it ain't.
That's one of the silliest things you've ever claimed. Non-English-speakers can't discuss evolutionism? Non-English-abusers can't? What cowardly "science" this is! No other science has to be protected in such a manner. No other
concept, for that matter. Well, Islam. I forgot. The policy is there on paper, but I've never seen anyone claim it in a real-world discussion if Islam.
This issue is a dead giveaway, too. All the real sciences strive to refine their terms and make them specific, more clear. Only when evolutionism is involved to we find the exact opposite. I think this rule is so consistent it can be used to make predictions. Should one happen to notice a redefinition in any field of science that blurs meaning, obstructs clear communication, and promotes misunderstand, it should be investigated. If this field were aerodynamics, for example, you can bet your britches there's some implication somewhere that has an impact on evolutionism. Pterodactyl analysis or something to do with an imagined "evolutionary path" of some flying insect would be behind the change, although it might take some digging to find it.
