Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Think bigger think better.
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 78 (507469)
05-05-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by onifre
04-26-2009 1:30 AM


Percy said "pardon my french" and you felt compelled to write a huge post about slang terms. Yet, when asked to clarify your comments in your posts, you give us poetry and nonsensical replies.
He copied and pasted it...
France explained to the world (and vice versa).: Pardon my French
Fine, you are not illiterate, you clarified that, now stop being vague about the other stuff - for fucks sake.
No. He clearly does not have the communication skills necessary to adequately deliver his idea for a forum such as this one.
Another crank that will eventually disappear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by onifre, posted 04-26-2009 1:30 AM onifre has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 78 (507472)
05-05-2009 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by paullesq
05-05-2009 11:43 AM


You post you reply to a third party, i am here ask away.
But from reading the thread I can see that you are either unable or unwilling to communicate your ideas in a way that they can be criticized effectively, so why would I even bother?
You'd rather dance around in obscurity and feal like you're on to something *really big*.
It turns out that your just another crank, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by paullesq, posted 05-05-2009 11:43 AM paullesq has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 78 (507500)
05-05-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by paullesq
05-05-2009 4:17 PM


How, or why exactly, does a single beginning denote a single process? Could not a single beginning lead to multiple processes?
You're "theory" really just lacks any evidence. I don't see any reason to speculate on how biological evolution could be a part of some bigger process other than your say-so.
You seem to be looking with hind-sight and then recognizing a pattern and thus concluding that the direction is there. Its the same problem of seeing a puddle and concluding that the pothole was designed to fit around the water.
Biological Evolution requires replication. The "potential for biological evolution" comes about because organisms don't replicate perfectly. Its not nearly as amazing as your incredulity alludes to.
And you also mention "something from nothing". Well, there was never "nothing" and there has always been "something", so there's no real point in discussing that.
Oh, and if you put down the straw your nose will stop running.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by paullesq, posted 05-05-2009 4:17 PM paullesq has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 78 (507505)
05-05-2009 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by paullesq
05-05-2009 4:39 PM


Had you replied to his post rather than using the general reply then there would have been a link to the message and I would have seen it.
But only idiots know how forums actually work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by paullesq, posted 05-05-2009 4:39 PM paullesq has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 78 (507510)
05-05-2009 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by paullesq
05-05-2009 5:17 PM


Zackly... Lead to a multiple of processes... You mean that there was one process and all the others branched out from the single one. If you had a mind too you could collect together all the different types of interactions and processes and place them into categories by type. Inorganic organic mind.
So then its not a single process....
Wtf were you typing about then?
The process of primordial evolution is less complex than biological evolution.
But you have no evidence that there is even such a thing as primordial evolution. Basically, you're just making it up.
It makes perfect sense.
To you maybe. To everyone else, things make perfect sense without it.
You seem to be looking with hind-sight and then recognizing a pattern and thus concluding that the direction is there. Its the same problem of seeing a puddle and concluding that the pothole was designed to fit around the water.
The problem you speak off is not a problem.
Sure it is, it is fallacious reasoning. The water conforms to the pothole! We all know that!
The ability, the potential to understand and manipulate nature is greater than nature. That is what good intelligent selection is all about.
Whoopty-do
Biological evolution requires replication, the more primitive process does not.
So what? You're not really even describing anything at all.
Biological evolution is a very specific process. Your Primal Evolution is a vague musing.
It seems to stem from post hoc ergo propter hoc combined with a little wishful thinking and the desire for profoundness.
And you also mention "something from nothing". Well, there was never "nothing" and there has always been "something", so there's no real point in discussing that.
That's right, you cannot have 'natural selection' without primal selection.
Non-sequitor.
Besides that's an unsupported assertion. Support it please or I get to counter it with my own:
"Yes you can."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by paullesq, posted 05-05-2009 5:17 PM paullesq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Admin, posted 05-05-2009 5:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024