Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Remember my limb and feature theory

GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 4:51:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well incase you cannot, I will remind.

It isn't subject to evolution, but it is a crucial philosophy which tends to work not for it, but against. Particular creatures have limbs which can of course are seen, however like the veil of perception (those who have studied philosophy should know what that is) covering the perceives senses, since your five senses are not things rather processors, you can never see the external world as it really is. (I recommend if you do not know this subject enough or not at all, that you go study it.)

So we cannot directly see a creatures limb, why, because the feature which possesses the limb is always in operation. It is always there much like our senses are. I won't go onto the evolutionary debate, unless I have to...(Sigh.)

But I am going to give other examples.

Example 1: Appearance and looks. Let me explain. Usually when people say, "I like the looks of that." They won't commonly dislike the appearance. It fact probably never. However, say there was a good looking woman, and you say she is good looking, but her appearance isn't good. She's homeless or for a better example, a girl has a disease called noma, half of her face is disfigured and there is a opening where her cheek should be, but it's been eaten away by bacteria. So her appearance isn't nice at all, but if she didn't have the disease, hear appearance would be great. However she has always good looking and beautiful. So in short you can never see her looks, rather only her appearance. Since she never looks the same. We are always in motion so you never see a standard image of anyone or anything in what they should look like, rather only what they do look like. And what they do look like is always in motion, so you only see a persons or some things appearance.

Example 2: Team and player. We all know that a team is a group of people that partakes in a task or challenge. And we all know players make up the team. So lets take a football (soccer) team for example, there are players of course but they are a team, the players are also people when they are not playing although when they are not playing, they are still a team, but they are not players. Since how can you be a player if you are not playing the game? To say that someone is a play while her or she isn't playing is like saying, "I'm 21, but my birthday is in January." When you look at a football team, you don't actually see the team, but the players. Say there is a team photo. Your not looking at the team, but a group of people known as the plays of the team. So a team is a process, it isn't a thing or an object or someone, like the player is or better put, a team member. As it is said, there is no 'I' in team. So if you were to take away a player, there would still be a team.

Example 3: Music genre and song: Face it, no one listens to a music genre, but only songs. A music genre is a standard for what a song should sound like. We listen to songs, that's why people say to you, "What music are you listening to?" Or, "What music are you into." You can listen to a song which is within a genre of music say for example, rock or pop. But a music genre is a process which you cannot identify within a song, since the whole song is within that music genre. This is why a Coldplay: A Rush of Blood to the head will never be the music genre of Jazz, well maybe if you give it a couple of million years...Yeah, maybe...No only messing.

Can anyone think up more examples to help make my limb and feature theory more clear and evident?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:03:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 4:51:09 AM, GodSands wrote:
Well incase you cannot, I will remind.

Please, not this again.

It isn't subject to evolution, but it is a crucial philosophy which tends to work not for it, but against. Particular creatures have limbs which can of course are seen, however like the veil of perception (those who have studied philosophy should know what that is) covering the perceives senses, since your five senses are not things rather processors, you can never see the external world as it really is. (I recommend if you do not know this subject enough or not at all, that you go study it.)

So we cannot directly see a creatures limb, why, because the feature which possesses the limb is always in operation. It is always there much like our senses are. I won't go onto the evolutionary debate, unless I have to...(Sigh.)

I... what... how...

If I get this little explanatory paragraph, you're essentially trying to say that we can't "directly see" limbs because we can only know what we sense.... but how this disproves or even ventures into the area of evolutionary science I have no clue.

But I am going to give other examples.

Lovely.

Example 1: Appearance and looks. Let me explain. Usually when people say, "I like the looks of that." They won't commonly dislike the appearance. It fact probably never. However, say there was a good looking woman, and you say she is good looking, but her appearance isn't good. She's homeless or for a better example, a girl has a disease called noma, half of her face is disfigured and there is a opening where her cheek should be, but it's been eaten away by bacteria. So her appearance isn't nice at all, but if she didn't have the disease, hear appearance would be great. However she has always good looking and beautiful. So in short you can never see her looks, rather only her appearance. Since she never looks the same. We are always in motion so you never see a standard image of anyone or anything in what they should look like, rather only what they do look like. And what they do look like is always in motion, so you only see a persons or some things appearance.

This doesn't make any sense, GS. We can only see the girl's appearance, but not actually see it? There is no difference between "looks" and "appearance" in any definition of those words. What does motion have anything to do with?

Example 2: Team and player. We all know that a team is a group of people that partakes in a task or challenge. And we all know players make up the team. So lets take a football (soccer) team for example, there are players of course but they are a team, the players are also people when they are not playing although when they are not playing, they are still a team, but they are not players. Since how can you be a player if you are not playing the game? To say that someone is a play while her or she isn't playing is like saying, "I'm 21, but my birthday is in January." When you look at a football team, you don't actually see the team, but the players. Say there is a team photo. Your not looking at the team, but a group of people known as the plays of the team. So a team is a process, it isn't a thing or an object or someone, like the player is or better put, a team member. As it is said, there is no 'I' in team. So if you were to take away a player, there would still be a team.

.... What?

Example 3: Music genre and song: Face it, no one listens to a music genre, but only songs. A music genre is a standard for what a song should sound like. We listen to songs, that's why people say to you, "What music are you listening to?" Or, "What music are you into." You can listen to a song which is within a genre of music say for example, rock or pop. But a music genre is a process which you cannot identify within a song, since the whole song is within that music genre. This is why a Coldplay: A Rush of Blood to the head will never be the music genre of Jazz, well maybe if you give it a couple of million years...Yeah, maybe...No only messing.

... except "jazz" could easily be redefined as the music style that A Rush of Blood follows. Language, like biology, is constantly evolving and changing with the times and the situations that occur. What one word meant 100 years ago may not possibly mean the same thing it does now.

Can anyone think up more examples to help make my limb and feature theory more clear and evident?

No, because there is nothing to be "clear and evident" about.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:13:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
GodSands, I understand your limb and feature theory perfectly. It's just that when you try to attempt to disprove evolution using it, you get confused and start muddling up conceptions of things with the things themselves.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:20:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here I have another.

Example 4: God and His creation. None of us are perfect as clearly shown above (I knew I should have read through it before I posted it) but then again I got my point across. I believe God is a process, as He is eternal. And if you were to see God directly, you would burn up because of His holiness. Given that we are sinful. So because we are sinful, why should any good come from us? Ultimately the reason is because of the grace of God upon us all. So we have God, and His creation. No one can see God, He is invisible, "So is the pink unicorn..." Give it up and come up with an argument, a good one. Where was I, on yeah, God is invisible but His creation isn't. And because God is invisible, He is also eternal and invincible, and thus God is a process. A flowing one, but God is not the universe. Everything good that happens to people is because of the grace of God. So in other words, the only reason I made sense above was because of God's grace. Rather it says in Colossians 1:17 that all things continue to exist because of Jesus Christ. So rather than having things within life that we can identify with such as music genre and songs, we are all apart of the process of Jesus' reign which allows all things to continue which for Him takes up no effort. So given Colossians 1:17, everything, including us is subject to the process which is governed by Jesus Christ Himself.

This example is harder to explain, since unlike the others that I have give, you cannot pop your head out of this process and see what is going on.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:29:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 7/9/2010 5:03:28 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/9/2010 4:51:09 AM, GodSands wrote:
Well incase you cannot, I will remind.

Please, not this again.

It isn't subject to evolution, but it is a crucial philosophy which tends to work not for it, but against. Particular creatures have limbs which can of course are seen, however like the veil of perception (those who have studied philosophy should know what that is) covering the perceives senses, since your five senses are not things rather processors, you can never see the external world as it really is. (I recommend if you do not know this subject enough or not at all, that you go study it.)

So we cannot directly see a creatures limb, why, because the feature which possesses the limb is always in operation. It is always there much like our senses are. I won't go onto the evolutionary debate, unless I have to...(Sigh.)

I... what... how...

If I get this little explanatory paragraph, you're essentially trying to say that we can't "directly see" limbs because we can only know what we sense.... but how this disproves or even ventures into the area of evolutionary science I have no clue.

But I am going to give other examples.

Lovely.

Example 1: Appearance and looks. Let me explain. Usually when people say, "I like the looks of that." They won't commonly dislike the appearance. It fact probably never. However, say there was a good looking woman, and you say she is good looking, but her appearance isn't good. She's homeless or for a better example, a girl has a disease called noma, half of her face is disfigured and there is a opening where her cheek should be, but it's been eaten away by bacteria. So her appearance isn't nice at all, but if she didn't have the disease, hear appearance would be great. However she has always good looking and beautiful. So in short you can never see her looks, rather only her appearance. Since she never looks the same. We are always in motion so you never see a standard image of anyone or anything in what they should look like, rather only what they do look like. And what they do look like is always in motion, so you only see a persons or some things appearance.

This doesn't make any sense, GS. We can only see the girl's appearance, but not actually see it? There is no difference between "looks" and "appearance" in any definition of those words. What does motion have anything to do with?

Example 2: Team and player. We all know that a team is a group of people that partakes in a task or challenge. And we all know players make up the team. So lets take a football (soccer) team for example, there are players of course but they are a team, the players are also people when they are not playing although when they are not playing, they are still a team, but they are not players. Since how can you be a player if you are not playing the game? To say that someone is a play while her or she isn't playing is like saying, "I'm 21, but my birthday is in January." When you look at a football team, you don't actually see the team, but the players. Say there is a team photo. Your not looking at the team, but a group of people known as the plays of the team. So a team is a process, it isn't a thing or an object or someone, like the player is or better put, a team member. As it is said, there is no 'I' in team. So if you were to take away a player, there would still be a team.

.... What?

Example 3: Music genre and song: Face it, no one listens to a music genre, but only songs. A music genre is a standard for what a song should sound like. We listen to songs, that's why people say to you, "What music are you listening to?" Or, "What music are you into." You can listen to a song which is within a genre of music say for example, rock or pop. But a music genre is a process which you cannot identify within a song, since the whole song is within that music genre. This is why a Coldplay: A Rush of Blood to the head will never be the music genre of Jazz, well maybe if you give it a couple of million years...Yeah, maybe...No only messing.

... except "jazz" could easily be redefined as the music style that A Rush of Blood follows. Language, like biology, is constantly evolving and changing with the times and the situations that occur. What one word meant 100 years ago may not possibly mean the same thing it does now.

Can anyone think up more examples to help make my limb and feature theory more clear and evident?

No, because there is nothing to be "clear and evident" about.


Well go study the eternal world, you will learn about the veil of perception are our senses being processes. You don't know alot about it, as I can tell.

It is basically this. We don't see the external world directly, but rather we see sense impressions. Halucination and illusions are evident for this. If we were to see the external world, there wouldn't be anything wrong, such as halucination or illusions. We see through a veil that covers our senses. In the same way, limb and feature, a feature is what our senses sense. Not the limb. We cannot sense the limb directly. Get it? Good.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:45:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:31:54 AM, GodSands wrote:
We cannot clearly sense thing beyond the veil of perception sorry, we get clues of what our senses could be sensing.

We cannot clearly sense thing beyond the veil of perception sorry, we get clues of what our senses could be picking up rather.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 5:58:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:20:09 AM, GodSands wrote:

Rather it says in Colossians 1:17 that all things continue to exist because of Jesus Christ. So rather than having things within life that we can identify with such as music genre and songs, we are all apart of the process of Jesus' reign which allows all things to continue which for Him takes up no effort. So given Colossians 1:17, everything, including us is subject to the process which is governed by Jesus Christ Himself.

Colossians, indeed the entire Bible, is not "everything".

The Bible is supposedly the word of God but it was written by human hand. Why? Is God illiterate?

Why did he have to dictate it to his prophets? Why not write it himself? Surely a deity capable of creating an entire universe would be capable of learning how to read and write?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 6:15:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 7/9/2010 5:58:26 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
At 7/9/2010 5:20:09 AM, GodSands wrote:

Rather it says in Colossians 1:17 that all things continue to exist because of Jesus Christ. So rather than having things within life that we can identify with such as music genre and songs, we are all apart of the process of Jesus' reign which allows all things to continue which for Him takes up no effort. So given Colossians 1:17, everything, including us is subject to the process which is governed by Jesus Christ Himself.

Colossians, indeed the entire Bible, is not "everything".


The Bible is supposedly the word of God but it was written by human hand. Why? Is God illiterate?

Why did he have to dictate it to his prophets? Why not write it himself? Surely a deity capable of creating an entire universe would be capable of learning how to read and write?


The Bible as a physical book isn't the word of God, since the word of God is eternal and has always existed (John 1:1). The word is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is seen through out every verse in the Old Testiment, and story in the Old Testiment is directed by the character of Jesus Christ and what He will do. The Bible is the intructions and the message written by man. It was written by men I believe because men knew it to be the truth and they had a passion for the truth to allow others to know of what God has done. Christianity is a faith based on spreading the good news.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:35:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here are some more. Liquid, solid and gass, no one has seen any of those things.

Water is a liquid it sure is, but when you look at water, you see water. And when you look at coke, you are experiencing coke. Not liquid. Same goes for solids and gasses.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:40:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 3:22:50 PM, GodSands wrote:
Disappointing, I expects a few more posts, I wanted to come back from work to find some.

I dunno why, very few people seem to understand anything you say.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:42:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 4:51:09 AM, GodSands wrote:
Well incase [sic] you cannot, I will remind [sic].

It isn't subject to evolution, but it is a crucial philosophy which tends to work not for it, but against. Particular creatures have limbs which can of course are [sic] seen, [sic] however like the veil of perception (those who have studied philosophy should know what that is) covering the perceives senses, since your five senses are not things rather processors, you can never see the external world as it really is. (I recommend if you do not know this subject enough or not at all, that you go study it.)

So we cannot directly see a creatures limb, why,[sic] because the feature which possesses the limb is always in operation. It is always there much like our senses are. I won't go onto the evolutionary debate, unless I have to...(Sigh.)

But I am going to give other examples.

Example 1: Appearance and looks. Let me explain. Usually when people say, "I like the looks of that." [sic] They won't commonly dislike the appearance. It fact probably never. However, say there was a good looking woman, and you say she is good looking, but her appearance isn't good. She's homeless or for a better example, a girl has a disease called noma, half of her face is disfigured and there is a [sic] opening where her cheek should be, but it's been eaten away by bacteria. So her appearance isn't nice at all, but if she didn't have the disease, hear [sic] appearance would be great. However she has always good looking [sic] and beautiful. So in short you can never see her looks, rather only her appearance. Since she never looks the same.[sic] We are always in motion so you never see a standard image of anyone or anything in what they should look like, rather only what they do look like. And what they do look like is always in motion, so you only see a persons or some things [sic] appearance.

Example 2: Team and player. We all know that a team is a group of people that partakes in a task or challenge. And we all know players make up the team. So lets [sic] take a football (soccer) team for example, there are players of course but they are a team, [sic] the players are also people when they are not playing although when they are not playing, they are still a team, but they are not players. Since how can you be a player if you are not playing the game? To say that someone is a play while her [sic] or she isn't playing is like saying, "I'm 21, but my birthday is in January." When you look at a football team, you don't actually see the team, but the players. Say there is a team photo. Your [sic] not looking at the team, but a group of people known as the plays [sic] of the team. So a team is a process, [sic] it isn't a thing or an object or someone, like the player is or better put, a team member. As it is said, there is no 'I' in team. So if you were to take away a player, there would still be a team.

Example 3: Music genre and song: Face it, no one listens to a music genre, but only songs. A music genre is a standard for what a song should sound like. We listen to songs, that's why people say to you, "What music are you listening to?" Or, "What music are you into." [sic] You can listen to a song which is within a genre of music say [sic] for example, rock or pop. But a music genre is a process which you cannot identify within a song, since the whole song is within that music genre. This is why a Coldplay: A Rush of Blood to the head will never be the music genre of Jazz, well maybe if you give it a couple of million years...Yeah, maybe...No only messing.

I'm sure I missed a few.

In any case, it looks like you'll have to post this thread again.
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:48:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 7/9/2010 3:42:32 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
At 7/9/2010 4:51:09 AM, GodSands wrote:
Well incase [sic] you cannot, I will remind [sic].

It isn't subject to evolution, but it is a crucial philosophy which tends to work not for it, but against. Particular creatures have limbs which can of course are [sic] seen, [sic] however like the veil of perception (those who have studied philosophy should know what that is) covering the perceives senses, since your five senses are not things rather processors, you can never see the external world as it really is. (I recommend if you do not know this subject enough or not at all, that you go study it.)

So we cannot directly see a creatures limb, why,[sic] because the feature which possesses the limb is always in operation. It is always there much like our senses are. I won't go onto the evolutionary debate, unless I have to...(Sigh.)

But I am going to give other examples.

Example 1: Appearance and looks. Let me explain. Usually when people say, "I like the looks of that." [sic] They won't commonly dislike the appearance. It fact probably never. However, say there was a good looking woman, and you say she is good looking, but her appearance isn't good. She's homeless or for a better example, a girl has a disease called noma, half of her face is disfigured and there is a [sic] opening where her cheek should be, but it's been eaten away by bacteria. So her appearance isn't nice at all, but if she didn't have the disease, hear [sic] appearance would be great. However she has always good looking [sic] and beautiful. So in short you can never see her looks, rather only her appearance. Since she never looks the same.[sic] We are always in motion so you never see a standard image of anyone or anything in what they should look like, rather only what they do look like. And what they do look like is always in motion, so you only see a persons or some things [sic] appearance.

Example 2: Team and player. We all know that a team is a group of people that partakes in a task or challenge. And we all know players make up the team. So lets [sic] take a football (soccer) team for example, there are players of course but they are a team, [sic] the players are also people when they are not playing although when they are not playing, they are still a team, but they are not players. Since how can you be a player if you are not playing the game? To say that someone is a play while her [sic] or she isn't playing is like saying, "I'm 21, but my birthday is in January." When you look at a football team, you don't actually see the team, but the players. Say there is a team photo. Your [sic] not looking at the team, but a group of people known as the plays [sic] of the team. So a team is a process, [sic] it isn't a thing or an object or someone, like the player is or better put, a team member. As it is said, there is no 'I' in team. So if you were to take away a player, there would still be a team.

Example 3: Music genre and song: Face it, no one listens to a music genre, but only songs. A music genre is a standard for what a song should sound like. We listen to songs, that's why people say to you, "What music are you listening to?" Or, "What music are you into." [sic] You can listen to a song which is within a genre of music say [sic] for example, rock or pop. But a music genre is a process which you cannot identify within a song, since the whole song is within that music genre. This is why a Coldplay: A Rush of Blood to the head will never be the music genre of Jazz, well maybe if you give it a couple of million years...Yeah, maybe...No only messing.

I'm sure I missed a few.

In any case, it looks like you'll have to post this thread again.


Yeah I didn't read through it before I posted it, and I am inbetween being a slow typer and a fast typer, and the between stage will mean a few mistakes.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 3:53:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 7/9/2010 3:40:03 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 7/9/2010 3:22:50 PM, GodSands wrote:
Disappointing, I expects a few more posts, I wanted to come back from work to find some.

I dunno why, very few people seem to understand anything you say.


Same here.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 9:12:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
GS, you are a very, VERY confused person. I recommend you study the science of evolution. Let me ask you this - what do you think evolution is? Can you define it in a couple sentences?
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 10:31:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 7/9/2010 9:12:55 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
GS, you are a very, VERY confused person. I recommend you study the science of evolution. Let me ask you this - what do you think evolution is? Can you define it in a couple sentences?

I believe evolution is a slow process of biological events, where DNA is passed down to the offspring, and the more successful genetics will be the apdated to the environment. Evolution is an event which progresses over time to produce better adapted creatures, and the fit survivel.

I have no problem with any of that, but what I have a problem with is the millions of years turns one family of species into another family of species.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 11:00:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 5:13:20 AM, Kinesis wrote:
GodSands, I understand your limb and feature theory perfectly. It's just that when you try to attempt to disprove evolution using it, you get confused and start muddling up conceptions of things with the things themselves.

I'm confused. You seem to understand Sandish better than anyone else here, is he trying to disprove evolution through a royally f*cked up caricature of substance dualism?
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2010 11:02:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 10:31:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
At 7/9/2010 9:12:55 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
GS, you are a very, VERY confused person. I recommend you study the science of evolution. Let me ask you this - what do you think evolution is? Can you define it in a couple sentences?

I believe evolution is a slow process of biological events, where DNA is passed down to the offspring, and the more successful genetics will be the apdated to the environment. Evolution is an event which progresses over time to produce better adapted creatures, and the fit survivel.

I have no problem with any of that, but what I have a problem with is the millions of years turns one family of species into another family of species.

You're making progress, I think.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 12:31:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/9/2010 10:31:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/9/2010 9:12:55 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
GS, you are a very, VERY confused person. I recommend you study the science of evolution. Let me ask you this - what do you think evolution is? Can you define it in a couple sentences?

I believe evolution is a slow process of biological events, where DNA is passed down to the offspring, and the more successful genetics will be the apdated to the environment. Evolution is an event which progresses over time to produce better adapted creatures, and the fit survivel.

I have no problem with any of that, but what I have a problem with is the millions of years turns one family of species into another family of species.

Ok - we are making progress. Now... let's take an example.... the wolf and the dog are two separate species. Canis Lupus and Canis Familaris. With me so far?

Here's another one. A bobcat and a lynx are two different species. Lynx Lynx and Lynx Rufus.

In both these cases, can you accept that in a million years of evolution one species may branch from the other?
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 6:41:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 7/10/2010 12:31:12 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/9/2010 10:31:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/9/2010 9:12:55 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
GS, you are a very, VERY confused person. I recommend you study the science of evolution. Let me ask you this - what do you think evolution is? Can you define it in a couple sentences?

I believe evolution is a slow process of biological events, where DNA is passed down to the offspring, and the more successful genetics will be the apdated to the environment. Evolution is an event which progresses over time to produce better adapted creatures, and the fit survivel.

I have no problem with any of that, but what I have a problem with is the millions of years turns one family of species into another family of species.

Ok - we are making progress. Now... let's take an example.... the wolf and the dog are two separate species. Canis Lupus and Canis Familaris. With me so far?

Here's another one. A bobcat and a lynx are two different species. Lynx Lynx and Lynx Rufus.

In both these cases, can you accept that in a million years of evolution one species may branch from the other?


A bobcat and a lynx could probably manage a new species within a few months, they are so similiar. Just like a lion and a tiger managed a liger or a house and a donkey managing a mule. So you don't need to wack on millions of years.

I do not believe however unlike you, that if you keep on breeding cats, over millions of years you will have yourself, rather nature will have her self a non-cat family dervied from the cat family.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 10:59:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/10/2010 6:41:06 AM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/10/2010 12:31:12 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/9/2010 10:31:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/9/2010 9:12:55 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
GS, you are a very, VERY confused person. I recommend you study the science of evolution. Let me ask you this - what do you think evolution is? Can you define it in a couple sentences?

I believe evolution is a slow process of biological events, where DNA is passed down to the offspring, and the more successful genetics will be the apdated to the environment. Evolution is an event which progresses over time to produce better adapted creatures, and the fit survivel.

I have no problem with any of that, but what I have a problem with is the millions of years turns one family of species into another family of species.

Ok - we are making progress. Now... let's take an example.... the wolf and the dog are two separate species. Canis Lupus and Canis Familaris. With me so far?

Here's another one. A bobcat and a lynx are two different species. Lynx Lynx and Lynx Rufus.

In both these cases, can you accept that in a million years of evolution one species may branch from the other?


A bobcat and a lynx could probably manage a new species within a few months, they are so similiar. Just like a lion and a tiger managed a liger or a house and a donkey managing a mule. So you don't need to wack on millions of years.


You don't know what is meant by the word species do you?

I do not believe however unlike you, that if you keep on breeding cats, over millions of years you will have yourself, rather nature will have her self a non-cat family dervied from the cat family.

Can't you just study some biology, you know for like five minutes?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 2:33:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/10/2010 6:41:06 AM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/10/2010 12:31:12 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/9/2010 10:31:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/9/2010 9:12:55 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
GS, you are a very, VERY confused person. I recommend you study the science of evolution. Let me ask you this - what do you think evolution is? Can you define it in a couple sentences?

I believe evolution is a slow process of biological events, where DNA is passed down to the offspring, and the more successful genetics will be the apdated to the environment. Evolution is an event which progresses over time to produce better adapted creatures, and the fit survivel.

I have no problem with any of that, but what I have a problem with is the millions of years turns one family of species into another family of species.

Ok - we are making progress. Now... let's take an example.... the wolf and the dog are two separate species. Canis Lupus and Canis Familaris. With me so far?

Here's another one. A bobcat and a lynx are two different species. Lynx Lynx and Lynx Rufus.

In both these cases, can you accept that in a million years of evolution one species may branch from the other?


A bobcat and a lynx could probably manage a new species within a few months, they are so similiar. Just like a lion and a tiger managed a liger or a house and a donkey managing a mule. So you don't need to wack on millions of years.

Actually, it WOULD take millions of years for the bobcat and lynx to branch into a new species. The difference in the genome is slight, but there still needs to be a significant variation to have an entirely new species.

I do not believe however unlike you, that if you keep on breeding cats, over millions of years you will have yourself, rather nature will have her self a non-cat family dervied from the cat family.

That is simply incorrect. Nothing about evolution claims that you can breed a cat into a human. It is simply impossible. The claim is that at some point in time a cat and a human shared a common ancestor. Here's an example:

The cat and the dog are basically the same shape. Four legs, walk on the ground, tail, big upright ears... etc... with me so far? Ok - at some point in time, an animal existed that was not a dog or a cat, but had many of the same features. Over time, some of these animals developed more cat-like features, and others developed more dog-like features. The process by which they grew to be so distinct is exactly the same process as you accepted above for how the lynx and bobcat came to be separate species.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 6:10:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 7/10/2010 2:33:10 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/10/2010 6:41:06 AM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/10/2010 12:31:12 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/9/2010 10:31:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/9/2010 9:12:55 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
GS, you are a very, VERY confused person. I recommend you study the science of evolution. Let me ask you this - what do you think evolution is? Can you define it in a couple sentences?

I believe evolution is a slow process of biological events, where DNA is passed down to the offspring, and the more successful genetics will be the apdated to the environment. Evolution is an event which progresses over time to produce better adapted creatures, and the fit survivel.

I have no problem with any of that, but what I have a problem with is the millions of years turns one family of species into another family of species.

Ok - we are making progress. Now... let's take an example.... the wolf and the dog are two separate species. Canis Lupus and Canis Familaris. With me so far?

Here's another one. A bobcat and a lynx are two different species. Lynx Lynx and Lynx Rufus.

In both these cases, can you accept that in a million years of evolution one species may branch from the other?


A bobcat and a lynx could probably manage a new species within a few months, they are so similiar. Just like a lion and a tiger managed a liger or a house and a donkey managing a mule. So you don't need to wack on millions of years.

Actually, it WOULD take millions of years for the bobcat and lynx to branch into a new species. The difference in the genome is slight, but there still needs to be a significant variation to have an entirely new species.


I do not believe however unlike you, that if you keep on breeding cats, over millions of years you will have yourself, rather nature will have her self a non-cat family dervied from the cat family.

That is simply incorrect. Nothing about evolution claims that you can breed a cat into a human. It is simply impossible. The claim is that at some point in time a cat and a human shared a common ancestor. Here's an example:

The cat and the dog are basically the same shape. Four legs, walk on the ground, tail, big upright ears... etc... with me so far? Ok - at some point in time, an animal existed that was not a dog or a cat, but had many of the same features. Over time, some of these animals developed more cat-like features, and others developed more dog-like features. The process by which they grew to be so distinct is exactly the same process as you accepted above for how the lynx and bobcat came to be separate species.


I don't want to say too much, but is a lion and a tiger two different species? Yes, can they both breed? Yes. Is a liger a new species? Yes. New species.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 6:55:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/10/2010 6:10:04 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/10/2010 2:33:10 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
The cat and the dog are basically the same shape. Four legs, walk on the ground, tail, big upright ears... etc... with me so far? Ok - at some point in time, an animal existed that was not a dog or a cat, but had many of the same features. Over time, some of these animals developed more cat-like features, and others developed more dog-like features. The process by which they grew to be so distinct is exactly the same process as you accepted above for how the lynx and bobcat came to be separate species.


I don't want to say too much, but is a lion and a tiger two different species? Yes, can they both breed? Yes. Is a liger a new species? Yes. New species.

Actually, ligers and tiglons are not by themselves viable species. Liger and Tiglon females can breed with males of either cat species, but male ligers and tiglons cannot impregnate the females.

This kind of interbreeding is possible precisely because the two species are divergent enough genetically but not divergent enough sexually to create a new species. Ligers and Tiglons are genetically different, enough that they are neither Panthera Tigris NOR Panthera Leo.

But in the end, Ligers and Tiglons are NOT their own species. The best one can classify them is that they belong to the Panthera genus. But they are NOT A SPECIES.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 11:45:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/10/2010 6:10:04 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/10/2010 2:33:10 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/10/2010 6:41:06 AM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/10/2010 12:31:12 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/9/2010 10:31:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 7/9/2010 9:12:55 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
GS, you are a very, VERY confused person. I recommend you study the science of evolution. Let me ask you this - what do you think evolution is? Can you define it in a couple sentences?

I believe evolution is a slow process of biological events, where DNA is passed down to the offspring, and the more successful genetics will be the apdated to the environment. Evolution is an event which progresses over time to produce better adapted creatures, and the fit survivel.

I have no problem with any of that, but what I have a problem with is the millions of years turns one family of species into another family of species.

Ok - we are making progress. Now... let's take an example.... the wolf and the dog are two separate species. Canis Lupus and Canis Familaris. With me so far?

Here's another one. A bobcat and a lynx are two different species. Lynx Lynx and Lynx Rufus.

In both these cases, can you accept that in a million years of evolution one species may branch from the other?


A bobcat and a lynx could probably manage a new species within a few months, they are so similiar. Just like a lion and a tiger managed a liger or a house and a donkey managing a mule. So you don't need to wack on millions of years.

Actually, it WOULD take millions of years for the bobcat and lynx to branch into a new species. The difference in the genome is slight, but there still needs to be a significant variation to have an entirely new species.


I do not believe however unlike you, that if you keep on breeding cats, over millions of years you will have yourself, rather nature will have her self a non-cat family dervied from the cat family.

That is simply incorrect. Nothing about evolution claims that you can breed a cat into a human. It is simply impossible. The claim is that at some point in time a cat and a human shared a common ancestor. Here's an example:

The cat and the dog are basically the same shape. Four legs, walk on the ground, tail, big upright ears... etc... with me so far? Ok - at some point in time, an animal existed that was not a dog or a cat, but had many of the same features. Over time, some of these animals developed more cat-like features, and others developed more dog-like features. The process by which they grew to be so distinct is exactly the same process as you accepted above for how the lynx and bobcat came to be separate species.


I don't want to say too much, but is a lion and a tiger two different species? Yes, can they both breed? Yes. Is a liger a new species? Yes. New species.

How can you still not know the meanings of the most basic words after you have been taught again and again?

Gee whizz... is a lion and a tiger two different species, well let me see... they can breed... so thats a NO.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 11:50:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/10/2010 11:45:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Gee whizz... is a lion and a tiger two different species, well let me see... they can breed... so thats a NO.

*whisper*

Yeah... actually they can... offspring can't reproduce by themselves, but they can breed...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2010 11:58:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/10/2010 11:50:53 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/10/2010 11:45:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Gee whizz... is a lion and a tiger two different species, well let me see... they can breed... so thats a NO.

*whisper*

Yeah... actually they can... offspring can't reproduce by themselves, but they can breed...

Thats what I mean,
A lion and a tiger can breed together. Same species.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2010 12:08:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/10/2010 11:58:17 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/10/2010 11:50:53 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/10/2010 11:45:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Gee whizz... is a lion and a tiger two different species, well let me see... they can breed... so thats a NO.

*whisper*

Yeah... actually they can... offspring can't reproduce by themselves, but they can breed...

Thats what I mean,
A lion and a tiger can breed together. Same species.

/facepalm.

Lion and tiger are different species. Same genus. A liger and a tiglon are neither species, and are not species in and of themselves.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2010 12:11:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/11/2010 12:08:05 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/10/2010 11:58:17 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 7/10/2010 11:50:53 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 7/10/2010 11:45:49 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

Gee whizz... is a lion and a tiger two different species, well let me see... they can breed... so thats a NO.

*whisper*

Yeah... actually they can... offspring can't reproduce by themselves, but they can breed...

Thats what I mean,
A lion and a tiger can breed together. Same species.

/facepalm.

Lion and tiger are different species. Same genus.

Yea thats what I meant, come on you had to go check as well.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.