• 0 Posts
  • 136 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle





  • No, you inaccurately described evolution as design and then after admitting you meant evolution and definitively not design, rather than continuing the conversation and answering my questions, you are insisting on dithering that incorrect definitions are as valid as correct ones.

    They are not.

    You can keep trying to catch me though.

    It’s fun, and it doesn’t seem like you have any compelling arguments about plants or animals not evolving to be eaten anyway.


  • Nice try, but you’re consistently using the same word to mean two radically different concepts so that you can hop between definitions.

    “Let’s pretend pink means red and purple. Now, shirt number one is red and shirt number two is purple. They’re both pink, right?”

    Inaccurately and for your personal definitions, yes. Both shirts are pink.

    Accurately, no, one shirt is red and one shirt is purple.

    If you have a point you want to make, make it accurately.

    It’s okay if you used the wrong word the first time, say what you actually meant and move forward


  • You shouldn’t depend on using two definitions for one word in the same argument if you want to be taken seriously.

    In your first use of “design”, you mean that deliberate effort was made to eugenically breed dogs to exhibit certain traits. That’s accurate.

    In your original comment and your second use of “design” here, you mean “evolved” but inaccurately used the word “design” when you self-reportedly meant “evolved”, so I’m going to use the appropriate word “evolved” here instead.

    Anthropomorphizing evolution doesn’t make evolution a simpler concept than evolution itself.

    How do you mean that plants evolved to become food for something else?

    Plants were around hundreds of millions of years before any animals showed up. Do you mean fungi?