Total Posts:124|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Godsands Gibberish

Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 6:50:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Godsands is offended that I described one of his debate efforts as gibberish and is demanding to know why I have said this.
http://www.debate.org...

Ok so it is this. A certain species has particular features which are exclusive only
to it's self, it's own species, you don't see an elephant barking or with parrot wings. The part which is the dilemma for evolutionists is that we don't actually experience the 'limbs' of a species, rather the species features.

What is it that you are trying to say, a limb is a feature, we can see it, touch it, cut it, eat it. What is your argument?

So as an example: I am sure most people on this site has Facebook? You may or
may not have realised that you have never experienced 'Facebook' rather you can only experiences it's skin, the typically blue and white theme. Which is still a skin. The facebook it's self is not directly perceived because the skin is in the way. So in turn you have never been on Facebook, but only a skin that says Facebook on it. So in realation to species, there is no such thing as a species having limbs, but if I had my arm chopped off, I wouldn't say, "You chopped of my feature!" Because the feature which I prossess does not belong to me but my species, however my arm is mine and then so it is called my limb.

Do I really need to comment?

So evolutionists claim that species are evoloving over millions of years, that their features are evolving, but they are only to the environment. But if the feature is to totally change, so need be the actual limb. And so we should see sudden changes within species. As an example, there should be a precise creature that evolves instead of a species.

Evolution occurs BETWEEN the generations. This has been explained so many time to you.

Which of course no one witnesses. So to conclude.

Species = features. Macro limb perhaps.

Creature or animal = limbs. Micro feature perhaps.

What is a macro limb, a giant limb? A vast cosmic platonic form of a limb?

For a species to evolve its features much evolve, but that is only improvement on it's current existing features (cat getting a more bushy tail).

Okay...

And therefore if a species were to evolve into a totally different species if must evolve its limbs,

No, it must evolve so that it can not longer interbreed with it's parent species.

but as I have discussed, only particular animals or creatures have limbs, but it's features belong to it's species and not it's self. Therefore if it were to evolve it must evolve it's limbs and we do not see that. For otherwise it is merely improvement on the species features.

Some changes are within a species, other changes cause speciation.

My opponent will need argue that we can indeed see that a species has limbs and not features, and that through this that science can still prove evolution.

This is gibberish. Pure and simple.
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.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 7:20:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 6:50:01 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Godsands is offended that I described one of his debate efforts as gibberish and is demanding to know why I have said this.
http://www.debate.org...

Ok so it is this. A certain species has particular features which are exclusive only
to it's self, it's own species, you don't see an elephant barking or with parrot wings. The part which is the dilemma for evolutionists is that we don't actually experience the 'limbs' of a species, rather the species features.

What is it that you are trying to say, a limb is a feature, we can see it, touch it, cut it, eat it. What is your argument?

So as an example: I am sure most people on this site has Facebook? You may or
may not have realised that you have never experienced 'Facebook' rather you can only experiences it's skin, the typically blue and white theme. Which is still a skin. The facebook it's self is not directly perceived because the skin is in the way. So in turn you have never been on Facebook, but only a skin that says Facebook on it. So in realation to species, there is no such thing as a species having limbs, but if I had my arm chopped off, I wouldn't say, "You chopped of my feature!" Because the feature which I prossess does not belong to me but my species, however my arm is mine and then so it is called my limb.

Do I really need to comment?

So evolutionists claim that species are evoloving over millions of years, that their features are evolving, but they are only to the environment. But if the feature is to totally change, so need be the actual limb. And so we should see sudden changes within species. As an example, there should be a precise creature that evolves instead of a species.

Evolution occurs BETWEEN the generations. This has been explained so many time to you.


Which of course no one witnesses. So to conclude.

Species = features. Macro limb perhaps.

Creature or animal = limbs. Micro feature perhaps.

What is a macro limb, a giant limb? A vast cosmic platonic form of a limb?

For a species to evolve its features much evolve, but that is only improvement on it's current existing features (cat getting a more bushy tail).

Okay...

And therefore if a species were to evolve into a totally different species if must evolve its limbs,

No, it must evolve so that it can not longer interbreed with it's parent species.

but as I have discussed, only particular animals or creatures have limbs, but it's features belong to it's species and not it's self. Therefore if it were to evolve it must evolve it's limbs and we do not see that. For otherwise it is merely improvement on the species features.

Some changes are within a species, other changes cause speciation.

My opponent will need argue that we can indeed see that a species has limbs and not features, and that through this that science can still prove evolution.

This is gibberish. Pure and simple.

I have to be honest, i find your behavior more interesting. I frequently watch you compelled to engage in discussions where your fairly disciplined, if not rigid sense of logic is put against arguments and people that are clearly not working in this same language, although they frequently attempt it (major mistake in this process). The result is me imagining you banging your head against a concrete wall and hoping it will feel better when it stops. I also watch you trying desperately to find more people that will assist you in this self abusing activity and topics that will intensify the abuse. You are fascinating.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 8:55:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 7:20:52 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/16/2010 6:50:01 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Godsands is offended that I described one of his debate efforts as gibberish and is demanding to know why I have said this.
http://www.debate.org...

Ok so it is this. A certain species has particular features which are exclusive only
to it's self, it's own species, you don't see an elephant barking or with parrot wings. The part which is the dilemma for evolutionists is that we don't actually experience the 'limbs' of a species, rather the species features.

What is it that you are trying to say, a limb is a feature, we can see it, touch it, cut it, eat it. What is your argument?

So as an example: I am sure most people on this site has Facebook? You may or
may not have realised that you have never experienced 'Facebook' rather you can only experiences it's skin, the typically blue and white theme. Which is still a skin. The facebook it's self is not directly perceived because the skin is in the way. So in turn you have never been on Facebook, but only a skin that says Facebook on it. So in realation to species, there is no such thing as a species having limbs, but if I had my arm chopped off, I wouldn't say, "You chopped of my feature!" Because the feature which I prossess does not belong to me but my species, however my arm is mine and then so it is called my limb.

Do I really need to comment?

So evolutionists claim that species are evoloving over millions of years, that their features are evolving, but they are only to the environment. But if the feature is to totally change, so need be the actual limb. And so we should see sudden changes within species. As an example, there should be a precise creature that evolves instead of a species.

Evolution occurs BETWEEN the generations. This has been explained so many time to you.


Which of course no one witnesses. So to conclude.

Species = features. Macro limb perhaps.

Creature or animal = limbs. Micro feature perhaps.

What is a macro limb, a giant limb? A vast cosmic platonic form of a limb?

For a species to evolve its features much evolve, but that is only improvement on it's current existing features (cat getting a more bushy tail).

Okay...

And therefore if a species were to evolve into a totally different species if must evolve its limbs,

No, it must evolve so that it can not longer interbreed with it's parent species.

but as I have discussed, only particular animals or creatures have limbs, but it's features belong to it's species and not it's self. Therefore if it were to evolve it must evolve it's limbs and we do not see that. For otherwise it is merely improvement on the species features.

Some changes are within a species, other changes cause speciation.

My opponent will need argue that we can indeed see that a species has limbs and not features, and that through this that science can still prove evolution.

This is gibberish. Pure and simple.

I have to be honest, i find your behavior more interesting. I frequently watch you compelled to engage in discussions where your fairly disciplined, if not rigid sense of logic is put against arguments and people that are clearly not working in this same language, although they frequently attempt it (major mistake in this process). The result is me imagining you banging your head against a concrete wall and hoping it will feel better when it stops. I also watch you trying desperately to find more people that will assist you in this self abusing activity and topics that will intensify the abuse. You are fascinating.

Hmm thanks for the compliments, the underlined bit does not sound healthy at all however... oh dear.
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.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 9:46:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 8:55:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


Hmm thanks for the compliments, the underlined bit does not sound healthy at all however... oh dear.

Don't get me wrong, you seem like a really nice guy, especially when watching you with Mirza, but there is just something that just doesn't fit rationally. You seem to have a need to force logic into an area where it won't do what you would like it to do.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 12:40:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 9:46:52 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/16/2010 8:55:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


Hmm thanks for the compliments, the underlined bit does not sound healthy at all however... oh dear.

Don't get me wrong, you seem like a really nice guy, especially when watching you with Mirza, but there is just something that just doesn't fit rationally. You seem to have a need to force logic into an area where it won't do what you would like it to do.

Logic can be applied universally... right?
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.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 12:50:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 12:40:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/16/2010 9:46:52 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/16/2010 8:55:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


Hmm thanks for the compliments, the underlined bit does not sound healthy at all however... oh dear.

Don't get me wrong, you seem like a really nice guy, especially when watching you with Mirza, but there is just something that just doesn't fit rationally. You seem to have a need to force logic into an area where it won't do what you would like it to do.

Logic can be applied universally... right?

Your behavior lacks logic, and that is why i am fascinated by someone who values logic so much. Was it you that once called me a romantic, because i said it didn't apply to love?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 12:57:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Anyone else notice he ran with his tail between his legs from the Education forum when we actually challenged his theories with facts?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 1:02:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 9:46:52 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/16/2010 8:55:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


Hmm thanks for the compliments, the underlined bit does not sound healthy at all however... oh dear.

Don't get me wrong, you seem like a really nice guy, especially when watching you with Mirza, but there is just something that just doesn't fit rationally. You seem to have a need to force logic into an area where it won't do what you would like it to do.

You can make it fit. It might...hurt a little bit though.

http://www.acordselfstorage.com...

NNNRRRRGH....IT...CAN...FIT!
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 1:03:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 12:50:38 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/16/2010 12:40:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/16/2010 9:46:52 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/16/2010 8:55:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


Hmm thanks for the compliments, the underlined bit does not sound healthy at all however... oh dear.

Don't get me wrong, you seem like a really nice guy, especially when watching you with Mirza, but there is just something that just doesn't fit rationally. You seem to have a need to force logic into an area where it won't do what you would like it to do.

Logic can be applied universally... right?

Your behavior lacks logic,

I am human, if human behaviour was logical in a simple clear cut manner then our society and economy would not function (yea maybe logic is not universal). As long as my arguments tend towards logic its all good.

and that is why i am fascinated by someone who values logic so much. Was it you that once called me a romantic, because i said it didn't apply to love?

I can't remember!
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.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 1:20:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 1:03:42 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/16/2010 12:50:38 PM, innomen wrote:
At 6/16/2010 12:40:11 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/16/2010 9:46:52 AM, innomen wrote:
At 6/16/2010 8:55:12 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:


Hmm thanks for the compliments, the underlined bit does not sound healthy at all however... oh dear.

Don't get me wrong, you seem like a really nice guy, especially when watching you with Mirza, but there is just something that just doesn't fit rationally. You seem to have a need to force logic into an area where it won't do what you would like it to do.

Logic can be applied universally... right?

Your behavior lacks logic,

I am human, if human behaviour was logical in a simple clear cut manner then our society and economy would not function (yea maybe logic is not universal). As long as my arguments tend towards logic its all good.

and that is why i am fascinated by someone who values logic so much. Was it you that once called me a romantic, because i said it didn't apply to love?

I can't remember!

It might have been Kinesis

You're fine - just fascinating is all.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 1:49:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Let me explain this very, very clearly.

Step 1:

There are limbs (an arm, a fin, a leg, a flipper, a head, a torso, a head, a hand, a finger, a thumb, a precise organ, if that be an eye, a ear a nose or mouth.)

Now all of the above are limbs to a precise creature within a species, but they are also features to a precise creature within a species, but UNLIKE the limb, the feature that a particular creature inherits, BELONGS to it's species and not to a particular creature (You are not your species, your species is your species.) Because a species is an abstract concept (you cannot see it, nor touch it, or smell it or hear it and taste it) a species DOES NOT have limbs, because a limb is not an abstract concept (you can see it, touch it, smell it or hear it and taste it) and therefore precise creature WITHIN a species have limbs, but the whole species altogether DOES NOT have limb ONLY features. You with me so far?

Step 2:

Now we know what a limb means to a creature and what a feature is to a creature, how does this affect evolution?

Well evolution says, that a species evolves over millions of years. Well how? By evolving BRAND new features. Macro evolution can only work if BRAND new features evolve otherwise there is no such thing as macro evolution, only micro evolution.

So how does the limb and feature distinction affect this? Because (now read carefully) for BRAND new features to evolve, a BRAND new limb must to feature BRAND new features.

Step 3:

I will now give you an example; If the dog species was to evolve over millions of years into something other than the dog species, the dog species would need to evolve BRAND new limbs, but as I have demonstrated above, a species does not have limbs but ONLY features. Therefore with my track of logic, how then can the dog species evolve BRAND new features to make it a non-dog species over millions of years if a species ONLY has features. For evolution to work, in my logic, a species must have limbs, but it DOES NOT!

Step 4:

Do you understand?

Step 5:

Questions anyone?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 1:59:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is what you're saying?

1. 'species' are abstract concepts.
2. Abstract concepts can have features, but not limbs.
3. For a species to change into another species, it must evolve new limbs.
4. Species cannot evolve limbs, since they are abstract concepts.
5. Evolving new limbs is impossible.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 2:10:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 6/16/2010 1:59:06 PM, Kinesis wrote:
This is what you're saying?

1. 'species' are abstract concepts.
2. Abstract concepts can have features, but not limbs.
3. For a species to change into another species, it must evolve new limbs.
4. Species cannot evolve limbs, since they are abstract concepts.
5. Evolving new limbs is impossible.


Yes! That is dead right.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 2:40:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 1:59:06 PM, Kinesis wrote:
This is what you're saying?

1. 'species' are abstract concepts.
2. Abstract concepts can have features, but not limbs.
3. For a species to change into another species, it must evolve new limbs.
4. Species cannot evolve limbs, since they are abstract concepts.
5. Evolving new limbs is impossible.

Hmm. This is what I got out of it:
1A. Limbs belong to "actual creatures" that are part of a "species".
1B. Features are "abstract Limbs" belonging to a "species" but NOT to an "actual creature."
1C. Species is an "abstract" concept that refers to an "actual collection" of creatures (We'll differentiate them as Species vs Real Species.)

2A. Macro Evolution is true if new Features evolve; otherwise, only Micro Evolution is true.
2B. In order for new Features to evolve a new Limb must evolve.

3A. If the Dog Species (D.S.) was to evolve over millions of years into something other than the D.S., the D.S. would need to evolve new Limbs...

This is where your logical fallacy occurs: you are equivocating Species with Real Species. To correct this error, you simply need to state it without the logical fallacy as such:

If the Dog Species (D.S.) was to evolve over millions of years into something other than the D.S., the Dog Real Species would need to evolve new Limbs, and because a Real Species does have Limbs, Macro Evolution is true!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 2:51:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 6/16/2010 2:40:18 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 6/16/2010 1:59:06 PM, Kinesis wrote:
This is what you're saying?

1. 'species' are abstract concepts.
2. Abstract concepts can have features, but not limbs.
3. For a species to change into another species, it must evolve new limbs.
4. Species cannot evolve limbs, since they are abstract concepts.
5. Evolving new limbs is impossible.

Hmm. This is what I got out of it:
1A. Limbs belong to "actual creatures" that are part of a "species".
1B. Features are "abstract Limbs" belonging to a "species" but NOT to an "actual creature."
1C. Species is an "abstract" concept that refers to an "actual collection" of creatures (We'll differentiate them as Species vs Real Species.)

2A. Macro Evolution is true if new Features evolve; otherwise, only Micro Evolution is true.
2B. In order for new Features to evolve a new Limb must evolve.

3A. If the Dog Species (D.S.) was to evolve over millions of years into something other than the D.S., the D.S. would need to evolve new Limbs...

This is where your logical fallacy occurs: you are equivocating Species with Real Species. To correct this error, you simply need to state it without the logical fallacy as such:

If the Dog Species (D.S.) was to evolve over millions of years into something other than the D.S., the Dog Real Species would need to evolve new Limbs, and because a Real Species does have Limbs, Macro Evolution is true!


Firstly a creature within a species has both limbs and features, but unlike the limbs, feature do not belong to it, rather to 'its species.

Secondly what on earth is the difference between real species and species?
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 2:55:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 1:49:40 PM, GodSands wrote:
Let me explain this very, very clearly.

Go for it.

Step 1:

There are limbs (an arm, a fin, a leg, a flipper, a head, a torso, a head, a hand, a finger, a thumb, a precise organ, if that be an eye, a ear a nose or mouth.)

Um.. most of those aren't actually limbs but, okay.

Now all of the above are limbs to a precise creature within a species, but they are also features to a precise creature within a species, but UNLIKE the limb, the feature that a particular creature inherits, BELONGS to it's species and not to a particular creature (You are not your species, your species is your species.)

Whut?

Because a species is an abstract concept (you cannot see it, nor touch it, or smell it or hear it and taste it) a species DOES NOT have limbs, because a limb is not an abstract concept (you can see it, touch it, smell it or hear it and taste it) and therefore precise creature WITHIN a species have limbs, but the whole species altogether DOES NOT have limb ONLY features.

You with me so far?

Hell no.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 3:08:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 2:51:57 PM, GodSands wrote:
Firstly a creature within a species has both limbs and features, but unlike the limbs, feature do not belong to it, rather to 'its species.

Secondly what on earth is the difference between real species and species?

Sorry, but I was just trying to make sense out of what you wrote. It is soooo convoluted. Either way, you have an error in reasoning.
You stated that:

"...If the dog species was to evolve over millions of years into something other than the dog species, the dog species would need to evolve BRAND new limbs..."

This is incorrect as per YOUR own definition BECAUSE you said that species can only evolve new features & not limbs. So the dog species would evolve new features and not limbs.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 3:11:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh dear. Since when does evolution mean growing new limbs? And for that matter, since when was growing new limbs impossible? Since when did gibberish semantics disprove a century and a half of detailed observation and testing? Does GodSands know what he's talking about at all?

http://www.talkorigins.org...

GodSands: "I am between being a rationalist and a empiricist. You cannot reason without experience, and you cannot know you are experiencing if you do not reason that you are. I believe in the existence of the Christian God and the Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

Oh. You're a walking contradiction. Got it.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Anacharsis
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 3:34:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 2:10:33 PM, GodSands wrote:
: At 6/16/2010 1:59:06 PM, Kinesis wrote:
This is what you're saying?

1. 'species' are abstract concepts.
2. Abstract concepts can have features, but not limbs.
3. For a species to change into another species, it must evolve new limbs.
4. Species cannot evolve limbs, since they are abstract concepts.
5. Evolving new limbs is impossible.


Yes! That is dead right.

Well, it would be valid to say that an abstract concept should reflect the reality of the object that it indicates in order for the concept to be correct. Maybe you have an intuition in that direction.

It's important to recognize that the concept of a species is only ever expected by scientists to be an imprecise concept. It is difficult to point to the exact time at which two population groups become two different species. This is because there is often significant variation within a species. One of the key features of the species concept is that members of different population groups will not mate with each other or may do so unproductively. For example, a horse and a donkey may mate but produce only a sterile offspring. Birds of two species may appear identical to us and there may be no reason that we can see for them not to inter-breed, but yet they don't. The difference may be that they have a slightly different song or dance-like mating display "ritual". We do in fact label these as different species and over time their features will diverge even further. But as you can see from the bird example, the feature of the species (their particular mating dance) is indeed reflected in the individual. Of course, sometimes mutants are born that may lack the distinctive feature. You might say that this mutant doesn't belong to the species. If they then mated with another similar individual they may in fact be the beginning of a "speciation" event. If not, it's just a fluke, not a different species.

There are numerous entire books on this topic and I can not do justice to it in a forum post. Hopefully, the above examples illustrate a little bit. You need to read some of those books. Because it's clear that you don't really understand what a species is.
Anacharsis
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 3:37:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 1:49:40 PM, GodSands wrote:
Let me explain this very, very clearly.

Step 1:

There are limbs (an arm, a fin, a leg, a flipper, a head, a torso, a head, a hand, a finger, a thumb, a precise organ, if that be an eye, a ear a nose or mouth.)

Now all of the above are limbs to a precise creature within a species, but they are also features to a precise creature within a species, but UNLIKE the limb, the feature that a particular creature inherits, BELONGS to it's species and not to a particular creature (You are not your species, your species is your species.) Because a species is an abstract concept (you cannot see it, nor touch it, or smell it or hear it and taste it) a species DOES NOT have limbs, because a limb is not an abstract concept (you can see it, touch it, smell it or hear it and taste it) and therefore precise creature WITHIN a species have limbs, but the whole species altogether DOES NOT have limb ONLY features. You with me so far?

Step 2:

Now we know what a limb means to a creature and what a feature is to a creature, how does this affect evolution?

Well evolution says, that a species evolves over millions of years. Well how? By evolving BRAND new features. Macro evolution can only work if BRAND new features evolve otherwise there is no such thing as macro evolution, only micro evolution.

So how does the limb and feature distinction affect this? Because (now read carefully) for BRAND new features to evolve, a BRAND new limb must to feature BRAND new features.

Step 3:

I will now give you an example; If the dog species was to evolve over millions of years into something other than the dog species, the dog species would need to evolve BRAND new limbs, but as I have demonstrated above, a species does not have limbs but ONLY features. Therefore with my track of logic, how then can the dog species evolve BRAND new features to make it a non-dog species over millions of years if a species ONLY has features. For evolution to work, in my logic, a species must have limbs, but it DOES NOT!

Step 4:

Do you understand?

Step 5:

Questions anyone?

Thanks for the clarification, GodSands. This does make your idea clearer. It's still wrong, but clearer. Your debate argument referenced by CN did sound like gibberish.

Sorry.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 3:40:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 1:49:40 PM, GodSands wrote:
Let me explain this very, very clearly.


Lovely jubbly.

Step 1:

There are limbs (an arm, a fin, a leg, a flipper, a head, a torso, a head, a hand, a finger, a thumb, a precise organ, if that be an eye, a ear a nose or mouth.)

Now all of the above are limbs to a precise creature within a species,

Misuse of the word limb but its cool.

but they are also features to a precise creature within a species,

Right.

but UNLIKE the limb, the feature that a particular creature inherits, BELONGS to it's species and not to a particular creature

That makes no sense. What is the difference between limbs and features? You are making up a terminology that is unique to yourself.

(You are not your species, your species is your species.) Because a species is an abstract concept (you cannot see it, nor touch it, or smell it or hear it and taste it)

No, a species exists as an objective biological fact. I can't mate with my cat... okay we are both male.... but that aside I can't mate with him because we are difference species. I can rape a cow and there is no chance that of a cow-human hybrid appearing.

a species DOES NOT have limbs, because a limb is not an abstract concept (you can see it, touch it, smell it or hear it and taste it) and therefore precise creature WITHIN a species have limbs, but the whole species altogether DOES NOT have limb ONLY features. You with me so far?

A species is a biological classification of a group of animals who can interbreed. Examples of the species have limbs.


Step 2:

Now we know what a limb means to a creature and what a feature is to a creature, how does this affect evolution?

Well evolution says, that a species evolves over millions of years. Well how? By evolving BRAND new features. Macro evolution can only work if BRAND new features evolve otherwise there is no such thing as macro evolution, only micro evolution.

Evolution requires new data yes, macro evolution is simply a lot of micro evolution.


So how does the limb and feature distinction affect this? Because (now read carefully) for BRAND new features to evolve, a BRAND new limb must to feature BRAND new features.

False. My cat, and a Bengali tiger share a common ancestor, they are however different species. They both have the same number of limbs.


Step 3:

I will now give you an example; If the dog species was to evolve over millions of years into something other than the dog species, the dog species would need to evolve BRAND new limbs,

No, it would need to become so genetically distinct that reproduction was not possible.

but as I have demonstrated above, a species does not have limbs but ONLY features.

You have not demonstrated any such thing, this claim does not make sense in English.

with my track of logic, how then can the dog species evolve BRAND new features to make it a non-dog species over millions of years if a species ONLY has features. For evolution to work, in my logic, a species must have limbs, but it DOES NOT!

You have yet to explain how a species has features and not limbs, limbs are features.


Step 4:

Do you understand?

No, the words you are using do not mean what you think they do.


Step 5:

Questions anyone?

See above.
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.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 3:48:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Instead of typing a thousand words, please can someone clearly and reasonable state what is wrong with my theory? Withou any silly little evolution links, you send them as if I have not said anything but, "Tell me abouut evolution." I don't want any links. Just clear and short sentances explaining what is wrong or unreasonable about my philosophical theory.

Thank you.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 3:49:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 3:48:17 PM, GodSands wrote:
Instead of typing a thousand words, please can someone clearly and reasonable state what is wrong with my theory? Withou any silly little evolution links, you send them as if I have not said anything but, "Tell me abouut evolution." I don't want any links. Just clear and short sentances explaining what is wrong or unreasonable about my philosophical theory.

Thank you.

My last post is exactly that.
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.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 4:11:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 3:48:17 PM, GodSands wrote:
Instead of typing a thousand words, please can someone clearly and reasonable state what is wrong with my theory? Withou any silly little evolution links, you send them as if I have not said anything but, "Tell me abouut evolution." I don't want any links. Just clear and short sentances explaining what is wrong or unreasonable about my philosophical theory.

Thank you.

I and others tried that here: http://www.debate.org...

You ignored us.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 4:33:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lovely jubbly.

To begin with stop being sarcastic and grow up.

Misuse of the word limb but its cool.

I wasn't defining a limb, I was stating what it was in relation to a creature.

That makes no sense. What is the difference between limbs and features? You are making up a terminology that is unique to yourself.

No I am really not, I am not definting either, I am stating them in relation to a creature. A limb is not abstact because we can sense it, a feature is in the middle of limb and species, since a species has features, but if you put it into that context you cannot sense it. However if you put a feature into the context of a single creature you can.

No, a species exists as an objective biological fact. I can't mate with my cat... okay we are both male.... but that aside I can't mate with him because we are difference species. I can rape a cow and there is no chance that of a cow-human hybrid appearing.

No a species is what a human being creates to place creatures into a particular group of creatures. No one has seen a species, but everyone has seen a creature belonging to a species. A species is not biological, the creature with a species is biological.

A species is a biological classification of a group of animals who can interbreed. Examples of the species have limbs.

That depends, its debatable.

Evolution requires new data yes, macro evolution is simply a lot of micro evolution.

How is it, that is speculation, nothing scientific about that, just flawed philosophy that does not add up, why? micro evolution = 1km, 10km does not = macro evolution. 10km = micro evolution x 10.

False. My cat, and a Bengali tiger share a common ancestor, they are however different species. They both have the same number of limbs.

It's not about the number of limbs, and how do you knwo that they are ancestors? You onlu believe that off of empirical interpretation.

No, it would need to become so genetically distinct that reproduction was not possible.

?

You have not demonstrated any such thing, this claim does not make sense in English.

Why? Always explain your claims.

You have yet to explain how a species has features and not limbs, limbs are features.

Limbs are not abstract, a species is. End of that.

No, the words you are using do not mean what you think they do.

I am not making defintions.

See above.

Please do.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 4:50:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 4:33:33 PM, GodSands wrote:
Lovely jubbly.

To begin with stop being sarcastic and grow up.

To begin with get an education.


Misuse of the word limb but its cool.

I wasn't defining a limb, I was stating what it was in relation to a creature.

Yes you were and you were wrong.


That makes no sense. What is the difference between limbs and features? You are making up a terminology that is unique to yourself.

No I am really not, I am not definting either, I am stating them in relation to a creature. A limb is not abstact because we can sense it, a feature is in the middle of limb and species, since a species has features, but if you put it into that context you cannot sense it. However if you put a feature into the context of a single creature you can.

You are doing it again. A feature suggests a property of something. A dog for instance has a right foreleg and teeth. There are its properties. A species is a collective term.

No, a species exists as an objective biological fact. I can't mate with my cat... okay we are both male.... but that aside I can't mate with him because we are difference species. I can rape a cow and there is no chance that of a cow-human hybrid appearing.

No a species is what a human being creates to place creatures into a particular group of creatures. No one has seen a species, but everyone has seen a creature belonging to a species. A species is not biological, the creature with a species is biological.

It's an objective biological fact, we can demonstrate this. A frog and a tiger can not interbreed, they are not the same species. A tiger and a lion can.

A species is a biological classification of a group of animals who can interbreed. Examples of the species have limbs.

That depends, its debatable.

That is the definition.


Evolution requires new data yes, macro evolution is simply a lot of micro evolution.

How is it, that is speculation, nothing scientific about that, just flawed philosophy that does not add up, why? micro evolution = 1km, 10km does not = macro evolution. 10km = micro evolution x 10.

We have been over this many times.


False. My cat, and a Bengali tiger share a common ancestor, they are however different species. They both have the same number of limbs.

It's not about the number of limbs, and how do you knwo that they are ancestors? You onlu believe that off of empirical interpretation.

According to you it is about limbs, you have repeatedly stated that the difference between a species is limbs. We can logically infer a common ancestor due to DNA.


No, it would need to become so genetically distinct that reproduction was not possible.

?

That is the definition of speciation, the fact you dont know this, despite being told this so many times is the reason why you have no place talking about evolution.


You have not demonstrated any such thing, this claim does not make sense in English.

Why? Always explain your claims.

You have yet to explain how a species has features and not limbs, limbs are features.

Limbs are not abstract, a species is. End of that.

A species is not abstract.


No, the words you are using do not mean what you think they do.

I am not making defintions.


You have repeatedly attempted to do so.

See above.

Please do.
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.
Anacharsis
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 5:01:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/16/2010 3:48:17 PM, GodSands wrote:
Instead of typing a thousand words, please can someone clearly and reasonable state what is wrong with my theory? Withou any silly little evolution links, you send them as if I have not said anything but, "Tell me abouut evolution." I don't want any links. Just clear and short sentances explaining what is wrong or unreasonable about my philosophical theory.

Thank you.

Evolution is just the idea that living species change over time. Of course you have to understand what a species is. My first post was about that. You need to read a book on evolution. I can't be much more clear about what a species is in a forum post than my first one already was. So, let's assume you read the book and fully understand what a species is. Two population groups develop different characteristics because of different environmental conditions or even behavioral differences (the birds that develop distinctive mating dances). When they reach a point that they either can't or won't inter-breed because of physical or other barriers, they become different species.

Let me offer another example. Let's imagine that neanderthal humans were alive today and had their own neighborhood in Texas. They actually could interbreed with modern humans, but would be very unlikely to ever do so. Each group would find the other perhaps a little grotesque, they have different social customs and prefer a different diet. The neanderthals would thus keep mostly to themselves and become more and more different from other population groups over time if they maintained a physical or social isolation. Gradually over time these difference become more and more apparent until they look less and less alike, such as the difference between chimpanzees and gorillas.

How do these physical differences arise, you might ask? Some difference in their environment may favor greater survival or reproductive capacity for individuals with a certain trait, which is not favored in the other population group. That trait has greater representation in the following generations. Example: let's say that due to the terrain, individuals with a slightly different skin shade get skin cancer less often or are harder to see to attack. That different skin shade will become more prevalent. No, this does not mean that black and white people are different species. It is just an example of how one trait can begin to create differentiation. Over time these build up.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 5:01:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
: At 6/16/2010 4:50:38 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 6/16/2010 4:33:33 PM, GodSands wrote:
Lovely jubbly.

To begin with stop being sarcastic and grow up.

To begin with get an education.


Misuse of the word limb but its cool.

I wasn't defining a limb, I was stating what it was in relation to a creature.

Yes you were and you were wrong.


That makes no sense. What is the difference between limbs and features? You are making up a terminology that is unique to yourself.

No I am really not, I am not definting either, I am stating them in relation to a creature. A limb is not abstact because we can sense it, a feature is in the middle of limb and species, since a species has features, but if you put it into that context you cannot sense it. However if you put a feature into the context of a single creature you can.

You are doing it again. A feature suggests a property of something. A dog for instance has a right foreleg and teeth. There are its properties. A species is a collective term.

No, a species exists as an objective biological fact. I can't mate with my cat... okay we are both male.... but that aside I can't mate with him because we are difference species. I can rape a cow and there is no chance that of a cow-human hybrid appearing.

No a species is what a human being creates to place creatures into a particular group of creatures. No one has seen a species, but everyone has seen a creature belonging to a species. A species is not biological, the creature with a species is biological.

It's an objective biological fact, we can demonstrate this. A frog and a tiger can not interbreed, they are not the same species. A tiger and a lion can.

A species is a biological classification of a group of animals who can interbreed. Examples of the species have limbs.

That depends, its debatable.

That is the definition.


Evolution requires new data yes, macro evolution is simply a lot of micro evolution.

How is it, that is speculation, nothing scientific about that, just flawed philosophy that does not add up, why? micro evolution = 1km, 10km does not = macro evolution. 10km = micro evolution x 10.

We have been over this many times.


False. My cat, and a Bengali tiger share a common ancestor, they are however different species. They both have the same number of limbs.

It's not about the number of limbs, and how do you knwo that they are ancestors? You onlu believe that off of empirical interpretation.

According to you it is about limbs, you have repeatedly stated that the difference between a species is limbs. We can logically infer a common ancestor due to DNA.


No, it would need to become so genetically distinct that reproduction was not possible.

?

That is the definition of speciation, the fact you dont know this, despite being told this so many times is the reason why you have no place talking about evolution.


You have not demonstrated any such thing, this claim does not make sense in English.

Why? Always explain your claims.

You have yet to explain how a species has features and not limbs, limbs are features.

Limbs are not abstract, a species is. End of that.

A species is not abstract.


No, the words you are using do not mean what you think they do.

I am not making defintions.


You have repeatedly attempted to do so.

See above.

Please do.

This isn't going anywhere, you love evolution, end of. Good bye.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/16/2010 5:18:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Does that mean you're realizing that it's not easy to act like you know things when you really don't, or that you're going to come back in 24 hours with a slightly more gibberish version of your same post?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands