Darwin vs DNA

[sakinago]

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.

 

[LOki]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

... 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.

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.

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.

 

[percysunshine]

'Intelligent Design' is a straw man theory invented by liberals because they keep losing the debate over global warming.

 

[newpolitics]

'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.

 

[LOki]

'Intelligent Design' is a straw man theory invented by liberals because they keep losing the debate over global warming.

YOU​

 

[sakinago]

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.

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.

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.

 

[LOki]

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.

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."

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!

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.

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.

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.

... 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.

 

[sakinago]

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.

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.

... 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

 

[LOki]

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.

... 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!

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

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

3. Is there a such thing as an agnostic

Yes.

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.

 

[sakinago]

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."

3. Is there a such thing as an agnostic

Yes.

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.

 

[LOki]

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.

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.

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.

 

[sakinago]

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.

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

 

[newpolitics]

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.

 

[LOki]

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.

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.

Using their own logic against them.

It's not.

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.

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.

 

[LOki]

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."

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.

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!!!

 

[newpolitics]

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."

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.

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!!!

I should have clarified. Saying that APPARENT design involves an intelligence, is simply fallacious logic, and is an unwarranted use of inductive reasoning.

i'm confused. What is your position on ID?

 

[LOki]

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."

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.

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!!!

I should have clarified. Saying that APPARENT design involves an intelligence, is simply fallacious logic, and is an unwarranted use of inductive reasoning.

i'm confused. What is your position on ID?

It's creationism dressed up like science for the purpose of advancing religion in science classrooms.

 

[newpolitics]

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."

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.

Welcome to Intelligent-Design's first argument. BRAVO!!!

I should have clarified. Saying that APPARENT design involves an intelligence, is simply fallacious logic, and is an unwarranted use of inductive reasoning.

i'm confused. What is your position on ID?

It's creationism dressed up like science for the purpose of advancing religion in science classrooms.

Yes, I agree with you're position. I'm an atheist.

 

[percysunshine]

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."

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.

Welcome to Intelligent-Design's first argument. BRAVO!!!

I should have clarified. Saying that APPARENT design involves an intelligence, is simply fallacious logic, and is an unwarranted use of inductive reasoning.

i'm confused. What is your position on ID?

It's creationism dressed up like science for the purpose of advancing religion in science classrooms.

Kind of like anthropogenic global warming theory.

 

[sakinago]

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.

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.

It's not.

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.

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.

Really cause thats not how you answered my first question in the questioniare. So now you do think that the word design can be used without it implying any sort of intelligent engineering. Hmm interesting.

And I believe your quote of my "god made evolution" in context went something like this (couldnt find, getting past my bed time, but if you can find it, then by all means please quote it in context) "I am using their logic against them, if you dont believe in evolution, but you believe that god made us the way we are, then you would have to believe god created evolution since that is what genetics tells us." Or something like that. Like I said please quote, and youll see that yes you are quoting me out of context.

When I was looking for that quote, I found a lot more other quotes of me clarifying my use of design (even though I clearly didnt need too). And I re-read your idiotic comment on the cancer blueprint gene. Did you want me to quote those.