US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Darwin vs DNA

This is a discussion on Darwin vs DNA within the Religion and Ethics forums, part of the US Discussion category; Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago Quote: Originally Posted by Hollie Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago Not sure what your getting at, you seem to be ...


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Religion and Ethics

Religion and Ethics Religion, Philosophy and the discussion of right and wrong

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #961 (permalink)  
Old 10-05-2012, 03:35 PM
Registered User
Member #39648
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 299
Thanks: 16
Thanked 66 Times in 49 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 38
sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Hollie View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post

Not sure what your getting at, you seem to be running in circles now. And I'm pretty sure you do not have a good understanding of cancer. If everyone lived to be 120, they would all have cancer at one point in their life. Some people's Genetics are more prone to cancer, but there is no blueprint of genetics that will automatically give someone cancer. Either way using your argument, idiotic as it may be, cancer is a consequence of evolution. thought you were trying to argue for evolution.

Cancer is the breakdown of genetic information that tells cells in the body to hold off on mitosis until it is necessary. Once that is lost the cells begin to rapidly multiply, forming tumors. These cells mutate even more so than before doing things that are either non or counter productive to the body, this makes the tumor malignant. Some times the mutated cells break off from the parent tumor and travel through the body and attach somewhere else and make a new tumor. I think this is a pretty good quick review of cancer.
It's possible that you forgot what you wrote? Your earlier comment was that all genetic information is designed to change. The context of your claim appeared to be that a supernatural designer was responsible for all genetic information. As the claimed designer of all, are the gods not responsible for all?

Did the omni-everything gods somehow overlook biological evolution and miss this?
What?? now your just putting words into my mouth. I think your reading way too deep into what I am saying (maybe you've been arguing with these two too long). I never said or even tried to hint about a designer. What I said is that our genetics are designed for diversity, and mutation. But let me clarify so this does not happen again with you. Gamets are designed to randomize some of the genetic code, and once two gametes meet and become a zygote, they randomize again. Teeth are designed to chew, eyes are designed to take in light and measure at different wavelengths and amplitudes, and gametes are designed to make diversified offspring.

And again using your logic, you would have to blame cancer on evolution, which I dont understand why you would be using that logic if your trying to make an argument for evolution. Either way it is not correct logic for either argument, whether you want to argue for or against creationism. When you make that argument you do not have a clear understanding of what cancer is... or your just trying to pick fights. And I am not explaining cancer to you again.
Loki... Again your argument is only based on your interpretation of my use of the word design. This is my 3rd post on this thread and the quote above is my clarification to you of what I mean when I said design. I think we can both agree that it is pretty clear that when I used the word design I am using the same meaning as function, not using it to mean created like in your interpretation (which Im pretty sure youve known this all along, your just picking stupid fights, if you werent you would have had better arguments...that actually make sense). So... I would like to try to see you prove that I am for ID without using your interpretation of my use of the word design after I have just debunked it.

And again... the argument I have made against ID cannot be touched by christians, while your arguments against it consist of name-calling, and making claims that they are stupider than you, without backing it up. I actually think even though you do believe in evolution, they are smarter than you, mainly because you talk like your a member of the special poetry slam team. The key to winning a debate is to knock out just one of the legs of the table the other sides argument sits on, that is what I have done... not you.

And yea that is my own definition of ID, I really dont think you can argue with it. I think it sums it up pretty nicely. ID is the only argument christians (and some alien theorist) have against evolution.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #962 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 02:05 PM
LOki's Avatar
The Yaweh of Mischief
Member #3110
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,712
Thanks: 45
Thanked 179 Times in 142 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 95
LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by Hollie View Post

It's possible that you forgot what you wrote? Your earlier comment was that all genetic information is designed to change. The context of your claim appeared to be that a supernatural designer was responsible for all genetic information. As the claimed designer of all, are the gods not responsible for all?

Did the omni-everything gods somehow overlook biological evolution and miss this?
What?? now your just putting words into my mouth. I think your reading way too deep into what I am saying (maybe you've been arguing with these two too long). I never said or even tried to hint about a designer. What I said is that our genetics are designed for diversity, and mutation. But let me clarify so this does not happen again with you. Gamets are designed to randomize some of the genetic code, and once two gametes meet and become a zygote, they randomize again. Teeth are designed to chew, eyes are designed to take in light and measure at different wavelengths and amplitudes, and gametes are designed to make diversified offspring.

And again using your logic, you would have to blame cancer on evolution, which I dont understand why you would be using that logic if your trying to make an argument for evolution. Either way it is not correct logic for either argument, whether you want to argue for or against creationism. When you make that argument you do not have a clear understanding of what cancer is... or your just trying to pick fights. And I am not explaining cancer to you again.
Loki... Again your argument is only based on your interpretation of my use of the word design.
I suppose you consider the consistency between my interpretation and the dictionary definition to be what ... just coincidence?

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
This is my 3rd post on this thread and the quote above is my clarification to you of what I mean when I said design.
"Gamets are designed to randomize some of the genetic code, and once two gametes meet and become a zygote, they randomize again. Teeth are designed to chew, eyes are designed to take in light and measure at different wavelengths and amplitudes, and gametes are designed to make diversified offspring."
It is rather apparent that when you say design, you mean:
de∑sign   [dih-zahyn]
verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.
Design is a function of intelligence; it is an expression of will to purpose; it is synonymous with "intent." Your Intelligent-Design credentials are obvious, and intact.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
I think we can both agree that it is pretty clear that when I used the word design I am using the same meaning as function, not using it to mean created like in your interpretation (which Im pretty sure youve known this all along, your just picking stupid fights, if you werent you would have had better arguments...that actually make sense).
I think that if you meant function, you would have said "function," rather than "design" (or its synonyms) over and over again.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
So... I would like to try to see you prove that I am for ID without using your interpretation of my use of the word design after I have just debunked it.
I have proven it both times you've asked before. You have debunked NOTHING.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
And again... the argument I have made against ID cannot be touched by christians, ...
They wouldn't touch it ... because you have made NO ARGUMENT against intelligent design. NOTHING you have posted is inconsistent with ID. EVERYTHING you have posted advances the argument for ID.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
... while your arguments against it consist of name-calling, and making claims that they are stupider than you, without backing it up.
Every argument i have posted has evidence to back it up posted with it.

You are just lying again.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
I actually think even though you do believe in evolution, they are smarter than you, mainly because you talk like your a member of the special poetry slam team. The key to winning a debate is to knock out just one of the legs of the table the other sides argument sits on, that is what I have done... not you.
You're a failure everywhere except you own deluded mind.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
And yea that is my own definition of ID, I really dont think you can argue with it. I think it sums it up pretty nicely. ID is the only argument christians (and some alien theorist) have against evolution.
"ID is the belief that life was created to fit in an ecosystem"
Well your very own definition is wrong.
intelligent design: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

Intelligent design is a belief that the universe could not have been created by chance and that some higher-power must have had a hand in creating the universe.

intelligent design: The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

intelligent design: the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
As it turns out, your definition of Intelligent-Design is just entirely your own, entirely unsubstantiated, and indeed just too conveniently bullshit. Creationists rename "Creationism" to "Intelligent-Design;" you want to call your version of Intelligent-Design, "Punctuated Equilibrium" ... That's fine with me. You mendacious retards aren't fooling ANYBODY.
__________________
"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." -Lysander Spooner

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
Reply With Quote
  #963 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 02:09 PM
percysunshine's Avatar
Message Board Hobbyist
Member #27941
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Sty
Posts: 10,245
Thanks: 241
Thanked 2,816 Times in 2,029 Posts
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2951
percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute
percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute percysunshine has a reputation beyond repute
'Intelligent Design' is a straw man theory invented by liberals because they keep losing the debate over global warming.
__________________
Life is a never ending sequence of unexpected events that occur at unusual moments with unanticipated consequences...and that is what makes it fun.
Reply With Quote
  #964 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 03:25 PM
newpolitics's Avatar
vegan atheist indy
Member #12057
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,913
Thanks: 542
Thanked 619 Times in 518 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 109
newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman
Quote: Originally Posted by percysunshine View Post
'Intelligent Design' is a straw man theory invented by liberals because they keep losing the debate over global warming.
WHAT????????????????????????????????????????

Intelligent Design is a theory made by proponents of that theory, specifically, those at the The Discovery Institute. You're allegations about this being a liberal straw man are demonstrably false.
__________________
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our cultural and political life. Nurtured by the false notion that Democracy means that my ignorance is just as good your knowledge. - Isaac Asimov

A manís ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.
- George Bernard Shaw

Last edited by newpolitics; 10-07-2012 at 03:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #965 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 04:07 PM
LOki's Avatar
The Yaweh of Mischief
Member #3110
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,712
Thanks: 45
Thanked 179 Times in 142 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 95
LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor
Quote: Originally Posted by percysunshine View Post
'Intelligent Design' is a straw man theory invented by liberals because they keep losing the debate over global warming.
__________________
"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." -Lysander Spooner

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

Last edited by LOki; 10-07-2012 at 08:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #966 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 04:09 PM
Registered User
Member #39648
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 299
Thanks: 16
Thanked 66 Times in 49 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 38
sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by LOki View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post

What?? now your just putting words into my mouth. I think your reading way too deep into what I am saying (maybe you've been arguing with these two too long). I never said or even tried to hint about a designer. What I said is that our genetics are designed for diversity, and mutation. But let me clarify so this does not happen again with you. Gamets are designed to randomize some of the genetic code, and once two gametes meet and become a zygote, they randomize again. Teeth are designed to chew, eyes are designed to take in light and measure at different wavelengths and amplitudes, and gametes are designed to make diversified offspring.

And again using your logic, you would have to blame cancer on evolution, which I dont understand why you would be using that logic if your trying to make an argument for evolution. Either way it is not correct logic for either argument, whether you want to argue for or against creationism. When you make that argument you do not have a clear understanding of what cancer is... or your just trying to pick fights. And I am not explaining cancer to you again.
Loki... Again your argument is only based on your interpretation of my use of the word design.
I suppose you consider the consistency between my interpretation and the dictionary definition to be what ... just coincidence?
"Gamets are designed to randomize some of the genetic code, and once two gametes meet and become a zygote, they randomize again. Teeth are designed to chew, eyes are designed to take in light and measure at different wavelengths and amplitudes, and gametes are designed to make diversified offspring."
It is rather apparent that when you say design, you mean:
de∑sign   [dih-zahyn]
verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.
Design is a function of intelligence; it is an expression of will to purpose; it is synonymous with "intent." Your Intelligent-Design credentials are obvious, and intact.

I think that if you meant function, you would have said "function," rather than "design" (or its synonyms) over and over again.

I have proven it both times you've asked before. You have debunked NOTHING.

They wouldn't touch it ... because you have made NO ARGUMENT against intelligent design. NOTHING you have posted is inconsistent with ID. EVERYTHING you have posted advances the argument for ID.

Every argument i have posted has evidence to back it up posted with it.

You are just lying again.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
I actually think even though you do believe in evolution, they are smarter than you, mainly because you talk like your a member of the special poetry slam team. The key to winning a debate is to knock out just one of the legs of the table the other sides argument sits on, that is what I have done... not you.
You're a failure everywhere except you own deluded mind.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
And yea that is my own definition of ID, I really dont think you can argue with it. I think it sums it up pretty nicely. ID is the only argument christians (and some alien theorist) have against evolution.
"ID is the belief that life was created to fit in an ecosystem"
Well your very own definition is wrong.
intelligent design: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

Intelligent design is a belief that the universe could not have been created by chance and that some higher-power must have had a hand in creating the universe.

intelligent design: The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

intelligent design: the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
As it turns out, your definition of Intelligent-Design is just entirely your own, entirely unsubstantiated, and indeed just too conveniently bullshit. Creationists rename "Creationism" to "Intelligent-Design;" you want to call your version of Intelligent-Design, "Punctuated Equilibrium" ... That's fine with me. You mendacious retards aren't fooling ANYBODY.
How the hell are you still trying to twist this into me meaning ID when I use the word design. The context in which I used it in the teeth example is clearly a meaning of function. You can put the dictionary term for the word retarded as much as you want, but 90% of the time I am using it to call something stupid, not slow. Turn on a fucking nature show, and watch one of the fruits pointing to some body part on some animal, and theyll probably throw out the word design (i.e. "see the serations on the sharks teeth, thats designed to tear right through flesh" in an australian accent.) Are you going to accuse them of not believing in evolution too? When you hear sportscasters talking about MJD, and they say "boy, his body is really designed with a low center of gravity," are they really trying to say he was genetically engineerd. The only reason I didnt think to use the word function...was because I didnt think to use it. Duh.

And again, you have no fucking clue what my personal beliefs about a god are, I can guarantee that my beliefs are way different from the people who made this post. And yea ID from a BIO standpoint is pretty much what my definition was... so I am going to copy and paste my next sentence. You can put the dictionary term for the word retarded as much as you want, but 90% of the time I am using it to call something stupid, not slow. And you knew from right off the bat that I believed in punctuated equilibrium, but I am pretty sure you assumed that it was some crazy ID theory, when in reality it is a refined version of standard evolution.

So if I did not make a good argument against ID, would you say the following statement is not true. That the function of genetics is to create variations offspring, insuring survivability of genetic code when the ecosystem changes.
Reply With Quote
  #967 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 04:28 PM
LOki's Avatar
The Yaweh of Mischief
Member #3110
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,712
Thanks: 45
Thanked 179 Times in 142 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 95
LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by LOki View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post

Loki... Again your argument is only based on your interpretation of my use of the word design.
I suppose you consider the consistency between my interpretation and the dictionary definition to be what ... just coincidence?
"Gamets are designed to randomize some of the genetic code, and once two gametes meet and become a zygote, they randomize again. Teeth are designed to chew, eyes are designed to take in light and measure at different wavelengths and amplitudes, and gametes are designed to make diversified offspring."
It is rather apparent that when you say design, you mean:
de∑sign   [dih-zahyn]
verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.
Design is a function of intelligence; it is an expression of will to purpose; it is synonymous with "intent." Your Intelligent-Design credentials are obvious, and intact.

I think that if you meant function, you would have said "function," rather than "design" (or its synonyms) over and over again.

I have proven it both times you've asked before. You have debunked NOTHING.

They wouldn't touch it ... because you have made NO ARGUMENT against intelligent design. NOTHING you have posted is inconsistent with ID. EVERYTHING you have posted advances the argument for ID.

Every argument i have posted has evidence to back it up posted with it.

You are just lying again.

You're a failure everywhere except you own deluded mind.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
And yea that is my own definition of ID, I really dont think you can argue with it. I think it sums it up pretty nicely. ID is the only argument christians (and some alien theorist) have against evolution.
"ID is the belief that life was created to fit in an ecosystem"
Well your very own definition is wrong.
intelligent design: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

Intelligent design is a belief that the universe could not have been created by chance and that some higher-power must have had a hand in creating the universe.

intelligent design: The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

intelligent design: the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
As it turns out, your definition of Intelligent-Design is just entirely your own, entirely unsubstantiated, and indeed just too conveniently bullshit. Creationists rename "Creationism" to "Intelligent-Design;" you want to call your version of Intelligent-Design, "Punctuated Equilibrium" ... That's fine with me. You mendacious retards aren't fooling ANYBODY.
How the hell are you still trying to twist this into me meaning ID when I use the word design. The context in which I used it in the teeth example is clearly a meaning of function.
The context is clear ... and you clearly said "design."

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
You can put the dictionary term for the word retarded as much as you want, but 90% of the time I am using it to call something stupid, not slow. Turn on a fucking nature show, and watch one of the fruits pointing to some body part on some animal, and theyll probably throw out the word design (i.e. "see the serations on the sharks teeth, thats designed to tear right through flesh" in an australian accent.) Are you going to accuse them of not believing in evolution too? When you hear sportscasters talking about MJD, and they say "boy, his body is really designed with a low center of gravity," are they really trying to say he was genetically engineerd.


The only reason I didnt think to use the word function...was because I didnt think to use it. Duh.
If they also said, "I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life" and "... God made evolution," then absolutely YES!

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
And again, you have no fucking clue what my personal beliefs about a god are, I can guarantee that my beliefs are way different from the people who made this post.
Are the different from the beliefs you state in your own words? If not, then I'm pretty accurate in my impression that you believe in a Diety, and that Diety created the universe and consequently life; and that you believe God made evolution.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
And yea ID from a BIO standpoint is pretty much what my definition was... so I am going to copy and paste my next sentence. You can put the dictionary term for the word retarded as much as you want, but 90% of the time I am using it to call something stupid, not slow. And you knew from right off the bat that I believed in punctuated equilibrium, but I am pretty sure you assumed that it was some crazy ID theory, when in reality it is a refined version of standard evolution.
There is nothing in punctuated equilibrium that excludes the deity, the God, the designer, that you are trying to advance.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
So if I did not make a good argument against ID, ...
You didn't make ANY argument against ID--you argued that genetics is DESIGNED.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
... would you say the following statement is not true. That the function of genetics is to create variations offspring, insuring survivability of genetic code when the ecosystem changes.
Genetics functions in that manner ... I just don't see that it was necessarily designed to function that way.
__________________
"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." -Lysander Spooner

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
Reply With Quote
  #968 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 04:43 PM
Registered User
Member #39648
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 299
Thanks: 16
Thanked 66 Times in 49 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 38
sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by LOki View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by LOki View Post
I suppose you consider the consistency between my interpretation and the dictionary definition to be what ... just coincidence?
"Gamets are designed to randomize some of the genetic code, and once two gametes meet and become a zygote, they randomize again. Teeth are designed to chew, eyes are designed to take in light and measure at different wavelengths and amplitudes, and gametes are designed to make diversified offspring."
It is rather apparent that when you say design, you mean:
de∑sign   [dih-zahyn]
verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.
Design is a function of intelligence; it is an expression of will to purpose; it is synonymous with "intent." Your Intelligent-Design credentials are obvious, and intact.

I think that if you meant function, you would have said "function," rather than "design" (or its synonyms) over and over again.

I have proven it both times you've asked before. You have debunked NOTHING.

They wouldn't touch it ... because you have made NO ARGUMENT against intelligent design. NOTHING you have posted is inconsistent with ID. EVERYTHING you have posted advances the argument for ID.

Every argument i have posted has evidence to back it up posted with it.

You are just lying again.

You're a failure everywhere except you own deluded mind.
"ID is the belief that life was created to fit in an ecosystem"
Well your very own definition is wrong.
intelligent design: the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence

Intelligent design is a belief that the universe could not have been created by chance and that some higher-power must have had a hand in creating the universe.

intelligent design: The assertion or belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance or undirected natural processes.

intelligent design: the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
As it turns out, your definition of Intelligent-Design is just entirely your own, entirely unsubstantiated, and indeed just too conveniently bullshit. Creationists rename "Creationism" to "Intelligent-Design;" you want to call your version of Intelligent-Design, "Punctuated Equilibrium" ... That's fine with me. You mendacious retards aren't fooling ANYBODY.
How the hell are you still trying to twist this into me meaning ID when I use the word design. The context in which I used it in the teeth example is clearly a meaning of function.
The context is clear ... and you clearly said "design."

If they also said, "I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life" and "... God made evolution," then absolutely YES!

Are the different from the beliefs you state in your own words? If not, then I'm pretty accurate in my impression that you believe in a Diety, and that Diety created the universe and consequently life; and that you believe God made evolution.

There is nothing in punctuated equilibrium that excludes the deity, the God, the designer, that you are trying to advance.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
So if I did not make a good argument against ID, ...
You didn't make ANY argument against ID--you argued that genetics is DESIGNED.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
... would you say the following statement is not true. That the function of genetics is to create variations offspring, insuring survivability of genetic code when the ecosystem changes.
Genetics functions in that manner ... I just don't see that it was necessarily designed to function that way.
You again take what I say out of context, and only argue against the points that you want to (which have been the same exact ones over and over) and you ignore the arguments I make against those points. Heres a little questionaire

1. When you see a sportscaster or a nature show host use the word design, are they automatically talking about ID.

2. If someone believes in ID are they against evolution.

3. Is there a such thing as an agnostic

4. If you answered no to my first question, then when I referenced my 3 post on this thread, was that 3rd post use of the word design a meaning of creation or function
Reply With Quote
  #969 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 04:59 PM
LOki's Avatar
The Yaweh of Mischief
Member #3110
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,712
Thanks: 45
Thanked 179 Times in 142 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 95
LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by LOki View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post

How the hell are you still trying to twist this into me meaning ID when I use the word design. The context in which I used it in the teeth example is clearly a meaning of function.
The context is clear ... and you clearly said "design."

If they also said, "I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life" and "... God made evolution," then absolutely YES!

Are the different from the beliefs you state in your own words? If not, then I'm pretty accurate in my impression that you believe in a Diety, and that Diety created the universe and consequently life; and that you believe God made evolution.

There is nothing in punctuated equilibrium that excludes the deity, the God, the designer, that you are trying to advance.

You didn't make ANY argument against ID--you argued that genetics is DESIGNED.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
... would you say the following statement is not true. That the function of genetics is to create variations offspring, insuring survivability of genetic code when the ecosystem changes.
Genetics functions in that manner ... I just don't see that it was necessarily designed to function that way.
You again take what I say out of context, and only argue against the points that you want to (which have been the same exact ones over and over) and you ignore the arguments I make against those points. Heres a little questionaire

1. When you see a sportscaster or a nature show host use the word design, are they automatically talking about ID.
If they also said, "I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life" and "... God made evolution," then absolutely YES!

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
2. If someone believes in ID are they against evolution.
Not if they believe "... God made evolution."

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
3. Is there a such thing as an agnostic
Yes.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
4. If you answered no to my first question, then when I referenced my 3 post on this thread, was that 3rd post use of the word design a meaning of creation or function
Creation.
__________________
"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." -Lysander Spooner

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt

Last edited by LOki; 10-07-2012 at 05:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #970 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 05:11 PM
Registered User
Member #39648
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 299
Thanks: 16
Thanked 66 Times in 49 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 38
sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by LOki View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by LOki View Post
The context is clear ... and you clearly said "design."

If they also said, "I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life" and "... God made evolution," then absolutely YES!

Are the different from the beliefs you state in your own words? If not, then I'm pretty accurate in my impression that you believe in a Diety, and that Diety created the universe and consequently life; and that you believe God made evolution.

There is nothing in punctuated equilibrium that excludes the deity, the God, the designer, that you are trying to advance.

You didn't make ANY argument against ID--you argued that genetics is DESIGNED.

Genetics functions in that manner ... I just don't see that it was necessarily designed to function that way.
You again take what I say out of context, and only argue against the points that you want to (which have been the same exact ones over and over) and you ignore the arguments I make against those points. Heres a little questionaire

1. When you see a sportscaster or a nature show host use the word design, are they automatically talking about ID.
If they also said, "I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life" and "... God made evolution," then absolutely YES!

Not if they believe "... God made evolution."

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
3. Is there a such thing as an agnostic
Yes.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
4. If you answered no to my first question, then when I referenced my 3 post on this thread, was that 3rd post use of the word design a meaning of creation or function
Creation.
Hahahaha, wow. I think even you can admit your answer to #1 couldnt even be considered a stretch. So you either have no valid argument and are really stretching... Or you are sooo deluded that you think sporstcasters on espn and nature hosts on animal planet are trying to hint at ID every time they get an opportunity. Thats pretty ridiculous.

And again way out of context with the "god made evolution" comment. Genetics allows evolution, therefore you cannot say that life has been created to fit its environment, but its environment shapes it...So if you believe that god made the life on earth out of mud, you would also have to believe that god made evolution. This is an oxymoron, unless you do not know how genetics works.
Reply With Quote
  #971 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 05:16 PM
LOki's Avatar
The Yaweh of Mischief
Member #3110
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,712
Thanks: 45
Thanked 179 Times in 142 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 95
LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by LOki View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post

You again take what I say out of context, and only argue against the points that you want to (which have been the same exact ones over and over) and you ignore the arguments I make against those points. Heres a little questionaire

1. When you see a sportscaster or a nature show host use the word design, are they automatically talking about ID.
If they also said, "I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life" and "... God made evolution," then absolutely YES!

Not if they believe "... God made evolution."

Yes.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
4. If you answered no to my first question, then when I referenced my 3 post on this thread, was that 3rd post use of the word design a meaning of creation or function
Creation.
Hahahaha, wow. I think even you can admit your answer to #1 couldnt even be considered a stretch. So you either have no valid argument and are really stretching... Or you are sooo deluded that you think sporstcasters on espn and nature hosts on animal planet are trying to hint at ID every time they get an opportunity. Thats pretty ridiculous.
If they also said, "I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life" and "... God made evolution,"--LIKE YOU DID--then they aren't hinting at anything, you prevaricating faggot.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
And again way out of context with the "god made evolution" comment. Genetics allows evolution, therefore you cannot say that life has been created to fit its environment, but its environment shapes it...So if you believe that god made the life on earth out of mud, you would also have to believe that god made evolution. This is an oxymoron, unless you do not know how genetics works.
I didn't say it you fucking moron--YOU DID.
__________________
"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." -Lysander Spooner

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
Reply With Quote
  #972 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 05:32 PM
Registered User
Member #39648
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 299
Thanks: 16
Thanked 66 Times in 49 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 38
sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks sakinago kicks locomotives off the tracks
Quote: Originally Posted by LOki View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by LOki View Post
If they also said, "I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life" and "... God made evolution," then absolutely YES!

Not if they believe "... God made evolution."

Yes.

Creation.
Hahahaha, wow. I think even you can admit your answer to #1 couldnt even be considered a stretch. So you either have no valid argument and are really stretching... Or you are sooo deluded that you think sporstcasters on espn and nature hosts on animal planet are trying to hint at ID every time they get an opportunity. Thats pretty ridiculous.
If they also said, "I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life" and "... God made evolution,"--LIKE YOU DID--then they aren't hinting at anything, you prevaricating faggot.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
And again way out of context with the "god made evolution" comment. Genetics allows evolution, therefore you cannot say that life has been created to fit its environment, but its environment shapes it...So if you believe that god made the life on earth out of mud, you would also have to believe that god made evolution. This is an oxymoron, unless you do not know how genetics works.
I didn't say it you fucking moron--YOU DID.
So... Why are you quoting my God made evolution, when it is clear that it is an argument against ID... Using their own logic against them. Do me a favor and go back and quote that entire statement, and lets see you try to say that I am somehow arguing for ID.

And if these sportscasters and nature show hosts believe in a diety, then theyre automatically are hinting at ID when they use the word design. Do you see how ridiculous your being
Reply With Quote
  #973 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 06:33 PM
newpolitics's Avatar
vegan atheist indy
Member #12057
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,913
Thanks: 542
Thanked 619 Times in 518 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 109
newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman newpolitics could be a Congressman
Saying design is necessitated by an intelligence is simply false. You can not use inductive reasoning to conclude that natural "design" comes from intelligence, because you have no other universes to compare our universe to.

To look at things that humans have created, and infer that other things that looks designed in nature were also created by an intelligence, is simply narcissistic.
__________________
Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our cultural and political life. Nurtured by the false notion that Democracy means that my ignorance is just as good your knowledge. - Isaac Asimov

A manís ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein

Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.
- George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #974 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 07:26 PM
LOki's Avatar
The Yaweh of Mischief
Member #3110
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,712
Thanks: 45
Thanked 179 Times in 142 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 95
LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by LOki View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post

Hahahaha, wow. I think even you can admit your answer to #1 couldnt even be considered a stretch. So you either have no valid argument and are really stretching... Or you are sooo deluded that you think sporstcasters on espn and nature hosts on animal planet are trying to hint at ID every time they get an opportunity. Thats pretty ridiculous.
If they also said, "I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life" and "... God made evolution,"--LIKE YOU DID--then they aren't hinting at anything, you prevaricating faggot.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
And again way out of context with the "god made evolution" comment. Genetics allows evolution, therefore you cannot say that life has been created to fit its environment, but its environment shapes it...So if you believe that god made the life on earth out of mud, you would also have to believe that god made evolution. This is an oxymoron, unless you do not know how genetics works.
I didn't say it you fucking moron--YOU DID.
So... Why are you quoting my God made evolution, when it is clear that it is an argument against ID...
It's not.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
Using their own logic against them.
It's not.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
Do me a favor and go back and quote that entire statement, and lets see you try to say that I am somehow arguing for ID.
No. YOU go back, and let's see YOU try to say that YOU are somehow NOT arguing for ID.

Quote: Originally Posted by sakinago View Post
And if these sportscasters and nature show hosts believe in a diety, then theyre automatically are hinting at ID when they use the word design. Do you see how ridiculous your being
No. Nor do I think the're hinting, you fucking moron.
__________________
"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." -Lysander Spooner

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
Reply With Quote
  #975 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2012, 07:34 PM
LOki's Avatar
The Yaweh of Mischief
Member #3110
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,712
Thanks: 45
Thanked 179 Times in 142 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 95
LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor LOki could be City Mayor
Quote: Originally Posted by newpolitics View Post
Saying design is necessitated by an intelligence is simply false.
Oh?
de∑sign   [dih-zahyn]
verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.
Design is a function of intelligence; it is an expression of will to purpose; it is synonymous with "intent."

Quote: Originally Posted by newpolitics View Post
You can not use inductive reasoning to conclude that natural "design" comes from intelligence, because you have no other universes to compare our universe to.
But I can know what the term "design" means; and I don't have to use inductive reasoning AT ALL to say design is necessitated by an intelligence.

Quote: Originally Posted by newpolitics View Post
To look at things that humans have created, and infer that other things that looks designed in nature were also created by an intelligence, is simply narcissistic.
Welcome to Intelligent-Design's first argument. BRAVO!!!
__________________
"It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts." -Lysander Spooner

"Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants, it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Religion and Ethics
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:49 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.