Should I trust the opinion of a level 2, probably alt account, probably troll?
Nope.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="theone86"][QUOTE="alexside1"]Oh look a troll. I swear this new tou just create more trouble than it ask.alexside1
Yeah, because we never got threads like this before the ToU change.
But those threads have subsistence at least...They try to attempt rather than just saying "nope".Yeah, but now we can call the trolls trolls and not get moderated for trolling.
No, the definition has not been restricted for any purpose other than to specifically define the parameters of "evolution" as it pertains to the process of genetic changes. Evolution does NOT address non-biological phenomena. coolbeans90An argument that restricts itself to existing definitions is probably not going to be very insightful. People did not discover that the Earth is a sphere by reflecting on the definition of Earth. It is a fact that the scientific definition of evolution has been manipulated in order to suit the current understanding that natural selection as the key mechanism of evolution. For this reason, I am using the English language definition of "evolution", which is the intuitive definition.
But those threads have subsistence at least...They try to attempt rather than just saying "nope".[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="theone86"]
Yeah, because we never got threads like this before the ToU change.
theone86
Yeah, but now we can call the trolls trolls and not get moderated for trolling.
It doesn't make the problem go away by calling them trolls if they keep trolling.[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]Paratheos, and JYoungin20years: one troll, two accounts. :roll:The-ApostleYeah, it's rare when I see a troll argue with him/herself but then again I don't normally wander into debate topics. Does this happen often? It's the first time I've seen it, and been aware that it's happening.
If it wasn't a sound scientific theory then it wouldn't be so widely accepted in the scientific community. What a ridiculous question.JustBeYourselfJust because it is widely accepted in the scientific community doesn't mean it's accurate. The scientific community once believed that light was propagated through a medium called the "luminiferous aether". It seems that the GS community is highly lacking in critical thinking skills.
[QUOTE="JustBeYourself"]If it wasn't a sound scientific theory then it wouldn't be so widely accepted in the scientific community. What a ridiculous question.paratheosJust because it is widely accepted in the scientific community doesn't mean it's accurate. The scientific community once believed that light was propagated through a medium called the "luminiferous aether". It seems that the GS community is highly lacking in critical thinking skills. Its a SOUND theory.
An argument that restricts itself to existing definitions is probably not going to be very insightful. People did not discover that the Earth is a sphere by reflecting on the definition of Earth. It is a fact that the scientific definition of evolution has been manipulated in order to suit the current understanding that natural selection as the key mechanism of evolution. For this reason, I am using the word "evolution" in the most intuitive sense.paratheos
It was pretty insightful with respect to describing a particular biological phenomena, WHICH WAS THE ENTIRE BLOODY PURPOSE. The definition was not restricted - just a particular aspect addressed. This is not manipulation - it is specification. It serves to further accuracy of what the hell people are talking about. Clearly defined terms matter. Your definition is counterintuitive when referring to natural selection as you are using a different word altogether.
Evolution is occurring, but not necessarily according to natural selection. Resistance to external threats can be transmitted by non genetic means. Single nucleotide mutations are not the key mechanism of evolution as is currently believed.paratheos
[QUOTE="JustBeYourself"]If it wasn't a sound scientific theory then it wouldn't be so widely accepted in the scientific community. What a ridiculous question.paratheosJust because it is widely accepted in the scientific community doesn't mean it's accurate. The scientific community once believed that light was propagated through a medium called the "luminiferous aether". It seems that the GS community is highly lacking in critical thinking skills. Flip flop much?
[QUOTE="tjricardo089"]Appeal to authority fallacy. GS disappoints once again. You responded with the wrong account... :lol:Should I trust the opinion of a level 2, probably alt account, probably troll?
Nope.
paratheos
Appeal to authority fallacy. GS disappoints once again. You responded with the wrong account... :lol: This. I believe he wants his other account.[QUOTE="paratheos"][QUOTE="tjricardo089"]
Should I trust the opinion of a level 2, probably alt account, probably troll?
Nope.
Frame_Dragger
Appeal to authority fallacy. GS disappoints once again. You responded with the wrong account... :lol: I'm calling out any logical fallacies as I see them. Like I said, this forum is lacking in critical thinking skills.[QUOTE="paratheos"][QUOTE="tjricardo089"]
Should I trust the opinion of a level 2, probably alt account, probably troll?
Nope.
Frame_Dragger
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]You responded with the wrong account... :lol: I'm calling out any logical fallacies as I see them. Like I said, this forum is lacking in critical thinking skills. So why revert to alt accounts than?[QUOTE="paratheos"] Appeal to authority fallacy. GS disappoints once again.paratheos
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]You responded with the wrong account... :lol: I'm calling out any logical fallacies as I see them. Like I said, this forum is lacking in critical thinking skills. There's critical thinking, and then there's keeping track of which alt you're using to reply at any given time. One is no substitute for the other... try harder damn it![QUOTE="paratheos"] Appeal to authority fallacy. GS disappoints once again.paratheos
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]You responded with the wrong account... :lol: I'm calling out any logical fallacies as I see them. Like I said, this forum is lacking in critical thinking skills. Who is this guy , frame?[QUOTE="paratheos"] Appeal to authority fallacy. GS disappoints once again.paratheos
[QUOTE="paratheos"][QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] You responded with the wrong account... :lol:I'm calling out any logical fallacies as I see them. Like I said, this forum is lacking in critical thinking skills. Who is this guy , frame? Hot a clue... other than that he's some putz arguing with himself on two alts at once. :hah:Charazani
[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"]You responded with the wrong account... :lol: I'm calling out any logical fallacies as I see them. Like I said, this forum is lacking in critical thinking skills. I really like how you ignored my post accusing you of flip flopping.[QUOTE="paratheos"] Appeal to authority fallacy. GS disappoints once again.paratheos
[QUOTE="paratheos"]Like I said, this forum is lacking in critical thinking skills.coolbeans90
Tell me about it.
you sunk my scrabbleship[QUOTE="paratheos"]Like I said, this forum is lacking in critical thinking skills.coolbeans90
Tell me about it.
You seem like a reasonable debater. You're willing to concede once in a while, which I respect. Just don't make your whole argument on definitions.Who is this guy , frame? Hot a clue... other than that he's some putz arguing with himself on two alts at once. :hah: Ah[QUOTE="Charazani"][QUOTE="paratheos"] I'm calling out any logical fallacies as I see them. Like I said, this forum is lacking in critical thinking skills.Frame_Dragger
Before the new ToU, people actually had to come up with asinine sh*t in order to make a thread that didn't get locked. I miss the old ToU now.foxhound_fox
I think this site's definately been for the worse since the new ToU were implemented. Although I do enjoy the freedom to call a spade a spade now.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="paratheos"]Like I said, this forum is lacking in critical thinking skills.paratheos
Tell me about it.
You seem like a reasonable debater. You're willing to concede once in a while, which I respect. Just don't make your whole argument on definitions. the meaning of words is the basis of debate, if you cant get past the foundation you cant build a constructive argument. if words are being used outside of their defined parameters then that needs to be pointed out.You seem like a reasonable debater. You're willing to concede once in a while, which I respect. Just don't make your whole argument on definitions. the meaning of words is the basis of debate, if you cant get past the foundation you cant build a constructive argument. if words are being used outside of their defined parameters then that needs to be pointed out. No the whole purpose of my argument is to go AGAINST the current notion of natural selection as the key mechanism of evolution. Just like Aristotle who argued against the definition of Earth as being flat. I can see how it must have been frustrating for him.[QUOTE="paratheos"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Tell me about it.
surrealnumber5
No the whole purpose of my argument is to go AGAINST the current notion of natural selection as the key mechanism of evolution. Just like Aristotle who argued against the definition of Earth as being flat. I can see how it must have been frustrating for him.paratheos
However, you are not arguing against the scientific theory natural selection is the key mechanism of evolution because you are not using words with the same meaning. You are not debating the substance, the essence of the theory. You are playing a cute little word game.
[QUOTE="paratheos"]No the whole purpose of my argument is to go AGAINST the current notion of natural selection as the key mechanism of evolution. Just like Aristotle who argued against the definition of Earth as being flat. I can see how it must have been frustrating for him.coolbeans90
However, you are not arguing against that natural selection is the key mechanism of evolution because you are not using words with the same meaning.
I think you're being obtuse once again :PI'll do it for him. EVILUTION is just a theory! If we came from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys? Did a monkey just poop out a human one day? Why does EVILUTION say everything comes from nothing? ADOLF HITLER believed in evolution, do you wanna be like him? Checkmate!RandoIphEven detractors were more thoughtful and civil than that... but those kind still existed too.
[QUOTE="paratheos"]I think you're being obtuse once again :Pcoolbeans90
Riveting tale, chap!
Your whole argument about definitions, so you're being obtuse. At least try to understand what I'm trying to say. Evolution is easy to understand as long as you understand it intuitively rather than dogmatically.Your whole argument about definitions, so you're being obtuse. At least try to understand what I'm trying to say. Evolution is easy to understand as long as you understand it intuitively rather than dogmatically.paratheos
The thing is, scientists do not use the "intuitive" (you are using the term counterintuitively) definition nor even address it within the confines of this theory in particular. Likewise, you are NOT addressing the same thing.
Scientists state that natural selection is the key mechanism in the biological process commonly referred to as evolution. You say that the changes in humanity's capacity to cope - including non-biological factors - with environmental threats is not due to natural selection. These concepts of "evolution" differ vastly and unless you directly address the theory within its parameters, you are not actually addressing the theories. You, sir, have committed the worst abuse of a pun that I have ever encountered. I applaud you for dragging me this far into this discussion and resent you for trolling the sh!t out of innocent folk.
Because they don't want to embarrass their main?I don't understand why you guys go and make alternate accounts, if your going to troll, grow some and post on your regular account.
Chris_Williams
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="paratheos"]I think you're being obtuse once again :Pparatheos
Riveting tale, chap!
Your whole argument about definitions, so you're being obtuse. At least try to understand what I'm trying to say. Evolution is easy to understand as long as you understand it intuitively rather than dogmatically. I can honestly say that I've met infants who have a better grasp of logical principles than you... go back to arguing with your other alt.[QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]Because they don't want to embarrass their main?Why would anyone even fear embarrassment on a gaming forum in the first place?I don't understand why you guys go and make alternate accounts, if your going to troll, grow some and post on your regular account.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Chris_Williams"]Because they don't want to embarrass their main?Why would anyone even fear embarrassment on a gaming forum in the first place? They're the same idiots who use two accounts to argue with themselves about evolution for kicks on OT? You can't hope to ascribe logic to that mind, now can you.I don't understand why you guys go and make alternate accounts, if your going to troll, grow some and post on your regular account.
Rockman999
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment