Darwin vs DNA

[sakinago]

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?

This ***** is trying to say that I believe in intelligent design, because I used the word design in my argument against Intelligent design. She's an idiot.

 

[LOki]

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?

This ***** is trying to say that I believe in intelligent design, ...

And you clearly do.

... because I used the word design in my argument against Intelligent design.

And because you said, "I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life"

And because you said, "... God made evolution."

She's an idiot.

This may be so, but it doesn't change your obvious status as an Intelligent-Design advocate.

 

[LOki]

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.

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 ******* 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.

You really can't.

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.

It's funny that you "couldn't find it", considering how I link to it every time I use it ... just to head off your bullshit "out of context" accusations.

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).

No you didn't.

And I re-read your idiotic comment on the cancer blueprint gene. Did you want me to quote those.

Yes. I dare you to quote my "idiotic comment on the cancer blueprint gene." Please do so.

 

[sakinago]

It's not.

It's not.

No. YOU go back, and let's see YOU try to say that YOU are somehow NOT arguing for ID.

No. Nor do I think the're hinting, you ******* 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.

You really can't.

It's funny that you "couldn't find it", considering how I link to it every time I use it ... just to head off your bullshit "out of context" accusations.

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).

No you didn't.

And I re-read your idiotic comment on the cancer blueprint gene. Did you want me to quote those.

Yes. I dare you to quote my "idiotic comment on the cancer blueprint gene." Please do so.

Oh really, so how I said the quote went previously, is no where near what I said... Okay then, disprove what I said. Like I said before, I am inviting you to use my quote in context and see what it says. And I know why you havn't quoted it in context yet, because you used it out of context and it hurts your argument.

Going back on the issue of consequentiality (like we really need to). Please explain to me how life started in the universe, at least in the context of life on earth? Would you say life is a by-product of our universe? Unless your a nihilist im not sure how you could argue that life is not a by-product of the universe.

And your quote about cancer said something like this " then why did god make a blueprint for the cancer gene" Oh my God, I had no clue that there is a gene that gives you cancer, heres an idea why dont we just look at everyones genetics and then we will know who exactly will get cancer. Is there a west-nile virus gene too?

 

[sakinago]

Disagree it just shows the creator used the very same substances to create the big difference is the genetic information.

Just like famous painters used the same brushes, canvass,and paint but all the famous paintings were a product of the same painter even though they were different.

But all of the genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations. This is what we have learned from genetics, whether its microbes or blue whales.

I guess we can thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell.

A wonder to behold.

Here it is, damn loki, you should get this information to the journal of medical oncology. This will revolutionize our cancer detection. I guess this means I dont have to do relay for life anymore. I cant believe you dont have this published yet. Peer reviewed by me and apporoved

 

[LOki]

But all of the genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations. This is what we have learned from genetics, whether its microbes or blue whales.

I guess we can thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell.

A wonder to behold.

Here it is, damn loki, you should get this information to the journal of medical oncology.

Here is what, dumbass? This is my quote, is it?

What does it say right at the beginning? "Quote: Originally Posted by Hollie"

So, you prevaricating retard, I'll still wait for you to produce this "idiotic comment on the cancer blueprint gene" you claim I posted.

This will revolutionize our cancer detection. I guess this means I dont have to do relay for life anymore. I cant believe you dont have this published yet. Peer reviewed by me and apporoved

I DOUBLE DARE you to quote my "idiotic comment on the cancer blueprint gene."

 

[LOki]

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.

You really can't.

It's funny that you "couldn't find it", considering how I link to it every time I use it ... just to head off your bullshit "out of context" accusations.

No you didn't.

And I re-read your idiotic comment on the cancer blueprint gene. Did you want me to quote those.

Yes. I dare you to quote my "idiotic comment on the cancer blueprint gene." Please do so.

Oh really, so how I said the quote went previously, is no where near what I said... Okay then, disprove what I said. Like I said before, I am inviting you to use my quote in context and see what it says. And I know why you havn't quoted it in context yet, because you used it out of context and it hurts your argument.

Nonsense.

"Again... genetics ensures variations in offspring so that when environmental variables change, the genetic code will go on. If thats what genetics does, then you have to say that God made evolution."​

Since you have said quite often that "genetics ensures variations in offspring ..." is true, it follows from your own assertions that you indeed believe that "God made evolution."

Going back on the issue of consequentiality (like we really need to). Please explain to me how life started in the universe, at least in the context of life on earth? Would you say life is a by-product of our universe? Unless your a nihilist im not sure how you could argue that life is not a by-product of the universe.

WTF is your problem? Why do you presume this is contentious for me?

And your quote about cancer said something like this " then why did god make a blueprint for the cancer gene" Oh my God, I had no clue that there is a gene that gives you cancer, heres an idea why dont we just look at everyones genetics and then we will know who exactly will get cancer. Is there a west-nile virus gene too?

My quote? I TRIPLE DARE you to quote my "idiotic comment on the cancer blueprint gene."

 

[sakinago]

DNA proved that we all come from one female, like the bible says.
I believe the Bible and DNA not evolutionists.

Again... genetics ensures variations in offspring so that when environmental variables change, the genetic code will go on. If thats what genetics does, then you have to say that God made evolution.

Wow loki, you are really trying hard to spin what I say, bad for you I found my qoute. Above is what I said IN CONTEXT, in response as an argument against someone who believes in ID. Perfect use of turning logic around against your opponent.

Oh and see post #985, I did use your quote, and I do think you should send it to the new england journal of medicine.

 

[Hollie]

But all of the genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations. This is what we have learned from genetics, whether its microbes or blue whales.

I guess we can thank the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell.

A wonder to behold.

Here it is, damn loki, you should get this information to the journal of medical oncology. This will revolutionize our cancer detection. I guess this means I dont have to do relay for life anymore. I cant believe you dont have this published yet. Peer reviewed by me and apporoved

My comment was in connection with thanking the gods for the blueprint for the cancer cell, not cancer gene.

 

[LOki]

DNA proved that we all come from one female, like the bible says.
I believe the Bible and DNA not evolutionists.

Again... genetics ensures variations in offspring so that when environmental variables change, the genetic code will go on. If thats what genetics does, then you have to say that God made evolution.

Wow loki, you are really trying hard to spin what I say, bad for you I found my qoute.

As if I was hiding it by linking to it.

Above is what I said IN CONTEXT, in response as an argument against someone who believes in ID. Perfect use of turning logic around against your opponent.

So, you were being sarcastic? You disagree then, that "genetics ensures variations in offspring so that when environmental variables change, the genetic code will go on."

A complete reversal of what you've been claiming until now.

OR

Since you have said quite often that "genetics ensures variations in offspring ..." is true, it follows from your own assertions that you indeed believe that "God made evolution."

Oh and see post #985, I did use your quote, and I do think you should send it to the new england journal of medicine.

Look at it again, retard. Who exactly are you quoting in post #985?

 

[sakinago]

Again... genetics ensures variations in offspring so that when environmental variables change, the genetic code will go on. If thats what genetics does, then you have to say that God made evolution.

Wow loki, you are really trying hard to spin what I say, bad for you I found my qoute.

As if I was hiding it by linking to it.

Above is what I said IN CONTEXT, in response as an argument against someone who believes in ID. Perfect use of turning logic around against your opponent.

So, you were being sarcastic? You disagree then, that "genetics ensures variations in offspring so that when environmental variables change, the genetic code will go on."

A complete reversal of what you've been claiming until now.

OR

Since you have said quite often that "genetics ensures variations in offspring ..." is true, it follows from your own assertions that you indeed believe that "God made evolution."

Oh and see post #985, I did use your quote, and I do think you should send it to the new england journal of medicine.

Look at it again, retard. Who exactly are you quoting in post #985?

First off, yea you did hide part of the conversation, a reference in the conversation that is important to the point I was making, that is what taking out of context is.

Second, what dont you understand about the logic I was using? It is plain and clear use of using ones logic against them. But you would like to label it as a sarcastic comment instead, nothing sarcastic about it, it is simply using ones line of thinking to contradict themselves. Let me break down the logic for you. This person said that they believe in God + DNA, not evolution, correct? My whole time in this thread has been explaining that you cant really use genetics as an argument against evolution, since it is the factor that allows evolution, correct? So If you believe in a god and ID, not evolution... but you believe in genetics (almost everyone does), and understand how genetics works (not many do), then you also must believe that if a god created our genetics from whatever creation story you believe in, then he also created evolution (if you know how genetics works). I am not sure what point you are missing here, it is really not that hard of a concept understand. Why do I have to hold your hand and walk you through the obvious argument that I am making here? Not sure how much clearer I have to make it, its already clear enough.

Third, my bad with me thinking I was quoting you in the blueprint for cancer. I think you must have answered my response to hollie's post, and I assumed I was having a conversation with the same person this whole time. I admit that I am wrong in this case...and I apologize.

That being said, hollie there is no blueprint for a cancer cell. The body just doesnt say, "hey we have instructions to make cancer in this part of the body, lets get on it." It is a BREAKDOWN IN THE BLUEPRINT OF THE GENETIC CODE, that tells cells to stay in the s-phase for a period of time. In cancer there is pretty much no s-phase, just a continuous m-phase. Its not in a blueprint, it is the breakdown of the blueprint, kind of like aging.

 

[LOki]

Wow loki, you are really trying hard to spin what I say, bad for you I found my qoute.

As if I was hiding it by linking to it.

So, you were being sarcastic? You disagree then, that "genetics ensures variations in offspring so that when environmental variables change, the genetic code will go on."

A complete reversal of what you've been claiming until now.

OR

Since you have said quite often that "genetics ensures variations in offspring ..." is true, it follows from your own assertions that you indeed believe that "God made evolution."

Oh and see post #985, I did use your quote, and I do think you should send it to the new england journal of medicine.

Look at it again, retard. Who exactly are you quoting in post #985?

First off, yea you did hide part of the conversation, a reference in the conversation that is important to the point I was making, that is what taking out of context is.

First off, you make a valid point ... IF you resolutely ignore the fact of reality that I linked to your post, so anyone who is interested could go right to your very own words--and view them in their original and unadulterated context--to see if I was misrepresenting you in any way what-so-ever. It is just unfortunate for your point that you are INDEED resolute in ignoring this fact of reality.

Secondly, your accusation--that I posted a contextomy--is demonstrably false, as we will all see.

Second, what dont you understand about the logic I was using? It is plain and clear use of using ones logic against them.

What logic? It is plain that you were only reasserting your creationist convictions ... which shall be demonstrated shortly.

But you would like to label it as a sarcastic comment instead, nothing sarcastic about it, it is simply using ones line of thinking to contradict themselves.

I was offering the possibility that you were being sarcastic as a gift to you. You have been rather insistent that throughout our interactions, you just have not said what you mean. As it is no responsibility of mine to bridge the gap between what you mean to say and what you actually say, you'll just have to accept that I'm going to take what you actually say to be what you actually mean to say.

Let me break down the logic for you.

Please do. (This promises to be entertaining.)

This person said that they believe in God + DNA, not evolution, correct?

This is correct. If they only believed in the validity of evolution as well, they would be in complete agreement with your version of creationism.

My whole time in this thread has been explaining that you cant really use genetics as an argument against evolution, since it is the factor that allows evolution, correct?

This is true. And it is entirely consistent with with your explicit assertion that a Diety created the universe and consequently life.

I am just assuming now that you are capable of following the logic that leads to the necessary conclusion that you also believe that in the course of creating the universe and life, this Deity you posit also created all the processes and mechanisms and functions that we observe in this "created" universe.

This would include all the processes and mechanisms and functions of physiology, ... and ... evolution.

So If you believe in a god and ID, not evolution... but you believe in genetics (almost everyone does), and understand how genetics works (not many do), then you also must believe that if a god created our genetics from whatever creation story you believe in, then he also created evolution (if you know how genetics works).

This conclusion (that "... God made evolution"), as it turns out, is fully consitent with your explicit assertion that a Diety created the universe and consequently life.

What this means sakinago, is that I did not--in any way what-so-ever--take anything you posted out of context to misrepresent you in any way.

I am not sure what point you are missing here, it is really not that hard of a concept understand.

The reality that you are so resolutely ignoring includes the fact that I am not missing any point you are actually making.

Why do I have to hold your hand and walk you through the obvious argument that I am making here?

The reality that you are so resolutely ignoring includes the fact that I have accurately identified the obvious creationist arguments you have actually been making.

Not sure how much clearer I have to make it, its already clear enough.

I don't think there is any doubt at all that all of your arguments are being made from creationist premises. I have done rather well at demonstrating that you could not possibly be clearer on this point. I have no idea why you think you need to be any clearer.

Third, my bad with me thinking I was quoting you in the blueprint for cancer. I think you must have answered my response to hollie's post,...

Nope.

... and I assumed I was having a conversation with the same person this whole time. I admit that I am wrong in this case...and I apologize.

Well, perhaps then you are not irretrievably resolute in ignoring the facts of reality. I hold some small measure of hope for you. Apology accepted.

 

[sakinago]

As if I was hiding it by linking to it.

So, you were being sarcastic? You disagree then, that "genetics ensures variations in offspring so that when environmental variables change, the genetic code will go on."

A complete reversal of what you've been claiming until now.

OR

Since you have said quite often that "genetics ensures variations in offspring ..." is true, it follows from your own assertions that you indeed believe that "God made evolution."

Look at it again, retard. Who exactly are you quoting in post #985?

First off, yea you did hide part of the conversation, a reference in the conversation that is important to the point I was making, that is what taking out of context is.

First off, you make a valid point ... IF you resolutely ignore the fact of reality that I linked to your post, so anyone who is interested could go right to your very own words--and view them in their original and unadulterated context--to see if I was misrepresenting you in any way what-so-ever. It is just unfortunate for your point that you are INDEED resolute in ignoring this fact of reality.

Secondly, your accusation--that I posted a contextomy--is demonstrably false, as we will all see.

What logic? It is plain that you were only reasserting your creationist convictions ... which shall be demonstrated shortly.

I was offering the possibility that you were being sarcastic as a gift to you. You have been rather insistent that throughout our interactions, you just have not said what you mean. As it is no responsibility of mine to bridge the gap between what you mean to say and what you actually say, you'll just have to accept that I'm going to take what you actually say to be what you actually mean to say.

Please do. (This promises to be entertaining.)

This is correct. If they only believed in the validity of evolution as well, they would be in complete agreement with your version of creationism.

This is true. And it is entirely consistent with with your explicit assertion that a Diety created the universe and consequently life.

I am just assuming now that you are capable of following the logic that leads to the necessary conclusion that you also believe that in the course of creating the universe and life, this Deity you posit also created all the processes and mechanisms and functions that we observe in this "created" universe.

This would include all the processes and mechanisms and functions of physiology, ... and ... evolution.

This conclusion (that "... God made evolution"), as it turns out, is fully consitent with your explicit assertion that a Diety created the universe and consequently life.

What this means sakinago, is that I did not--in any way what-so-ever--take anything you posted out of context to misrepresent you in any way.

The reality that you are so resolutely ignoring includes the fact that I am not missing any point you are actually making.

The reality that you are so resolutely ignoring includes the fact that I have accurately identified the obvious creationist arguments you have actually been making.

I don't think there is any doubt at all that all of your arguments are being made from creationist premises. I have done rather well at demonstrating that you could not possibly be clearer on this point. I have no idea why you think you need to be any clearer.

Third, my bad with me thinking I was quoting you in the blueprint for cancer. I think you must have answered my response to hollie's post,...

Nope.

... and I assumed I was having a conversation with the same person this whole time. I admit that I am wrong in this case...and I apologize.

Well, perhaps then you are not irretrievably resolute in ignoring the facts of reality. I hold some small measure of hope for you. Apology accepted.

Thanks for accepting my apology, again I thought that I have been talking with the same person this whole time...my bad. Now, you are still asserting that the "god made evoloution" line is meant for what it says, as opposed to a use of turning ones logic against them. The tactic you could say is similar to sarcasm, but it is absolutely different. As far as bridging the gap, I have done it many times, in probably at least 80% of my posts. And you cannot say that there is no logic in the statement I made (and it is still a stretch to say that I was not turning someones elses logic around on them), but that I meant it literally. The problem with your whole argument is that you also assert that I believe in god so I must also believe that a fatherly figure god is in direct control, or has an influence in everything (like evolution). So i guess I am just going to have to tell you my thoughts on a god (didnt want to do this).

In a nutshell, I dont know what the god is out there, but basically whatever it is, is the catalyst for there being something rather than nothing. But whatever it is, put the boundries (laws of physics, and etc.) in our universe, and sent it on its way. Conceptually if we have our boundaries, then something out there has to be boundless. And then here I would go into the physics problem of fine tuning, but that would get into a much much deeper conversation, with a lot of different concepts that I am sure you are not familiar with, that I would have to explain. I dont feel like writing a novel right now.

 

[paravani]

Can you produce a digital code without thinking? Nothing complex like a 30 billion letter code, just a simple digital code, without using your intellect.

Even computers don't produce digital code without "thinking". Thinking is the passage of millions of electrical charges through the brain... unless, of course, yours is dead.

-- Paravani

Good grief! Sorry, 992 posts later, I realize I should have read the WHOLE thread before responding to #9!

LOL!

 

[Hollie]

That being said, hollie there is no blueprint for a cancer cell. The body just doesnt say, "hey we have instructions to make cancer in this part of the body, lets get on it." It is a BREAKDOWN IN THE BLUEPRINT OF THE GENETIC CODE, that tells cells to stay in the s-phase for a period of time. In cancer there is pretty much no s-phase, just a continuous m-phase. Its not in a blueprint, it is the breakdown of the blueprint, kind of like aging.

Believers can assert the "omni's" of gods and not the anthropomorphic ones. Believers will assert that “he” (note the paternalistic attribute of the Abrahamic god) is perfection and then assign to him emotions like love, jealousy, anger, vengeance, and so on. Each of those attributes by definition assumes some lack or [/i]need[/i] that is required to be satisfied. This will not do in the Theistic argument, because it immediately defuses any claim that “he” is in some way eternally perfect. Now Idon't force anyone into this paradox, theists step into it wholeheartedly.

There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all existence (according to whatever version of god(s) you may believe in) is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the god(s) that cobbled it together. If cancer is a “natural consequence” unknown to the gods then you have removed an attribute: omniscience, that is assigned to them. That requires an imperfect god(s), one or more of them losing the attribute of “all knowing”. It’s a vicious circle that is utterly contradictory.

Things are the way they are because the gods want them precisely the way they are. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and cancer etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God(s). He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

That Leukemia thing was a masterstroke of "design".

 

[sakinago]

Can you produce a digital code without thinking? Nothing complex like a 30 billion letter code, just a simple digital code, without using your intellect.

Even computers don't produce digital code without "thinking". Thinking is the passage of millions of electrical charges through the brain... unless, of course, yours is dead.

-- Paravani

Good grief! Sorry, 992 posts later, I realize I should have read the WHOLE thread before responding to #9!

LOL!

Haha right, I dont even think theyre paying attention anymore. It just been me and loki goin at it for a while.

 

[paravani]

... and the scientist shall agree with the "Intelligent Design" creationist.



-- Paravani

Thanks for accepting my apology, again I thought that I have been talking with the same person this whole time...my bad. Now, you are still asserting that the "god made evoloution" line is meant for what it says, as opposed to a use of turning ones logic against them.

...

In a nutshell, I dont know what the god is out there, but basically whatever it is, is the catalyst for there being something rather than nothing. But whatever it is, put the boundries (laws of physics, and etc.) in our universe, and sent it on its way. Conceptually if we have our boundaries, then something out there has to be boundless. And then here I would go into the physics problem of fine tuning, but that would get into a much much deeper conversation, with a lot of different concepts that I am sure you are not familiar with, that I would have to explain. I dont feel like writing a novel right now.

 

[sakinago]

That being said, hollie there is no blueprint for a cancer cell. The body just doesnt say, "hey we have instructions to make cancer in this part of the body, lets get on it." It is a BREAKDOWN IN THE BLUEPRINT OF THE GENETIC CODE, that tells cells to stay in the s-phase for a period of time. In cancer there is pretty much no s-phase, just a continuous m-phase. Its not in a blueprint, it is the breakdown of the blueprint, kind of like aging.

Believers can assert the "omni's" of gods and not the anthropomorphic ones. Believers will assert that “he” (note the paternalistic attribute of the Abrahamic god) is perfection and then assign to him emotions like love, jealousy, anger, vengeance, and so on. Each of those attributes by definition assumes some lack or [/i]need[/i] that is required to be satisfied. This will not do in the Theistic argument, because it immediately defuses any claim that “he” is in some way eternally perfect. Now Idon't force anyone into this paradox, theists step into it wholeheartedly.

There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all existence (according to whatever version of god(s) you may believe in) is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the god(s) that cobbled it together. If cancer is a “natural consequence” unknown to the gods then you have removed an attribute: omniscience, that is assigned to them. That requires an imperfect god(s), one or more of them losing the attribute of “all knowing”. It’s a vicious circle that is utterly contradictory.

Things are the way they are because the gods want them precisely the way they are. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and cancer etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God(s). He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

That Leukemia thing was a masterstroke of "design".

This is a terrible argument hollie, you are just going to run around in circles with them. That was my initial point. I understand the logic behind the argument just fine. But this argument winds up no where and holds no weight, and its usually the first thing that people point out against ID. If life was perfect, there would be no death. Everyone knows that this is not the case. Think about your arguments before you make them. Another problem with saying that Leukemia is the masterstroke of design, using that logic you would have to say that if it is not the masterstroke of design it is the masterstroke of evolution... which is not the case either, and it shows no understanding of cancer.

I will point out to loki though, that even though this is a bad argument, it is another example of turning around logic against someone.

 

[sakinago]

... and the scientist shall agree with the "Intelligent Design" creationist.



-- Paravani

Thanks for accepting my apology, again I thought that I have been talking with the same person this whole time...my bad. Now, you are still asserting that the "god made evoloution" line is meant for what it says, as opposed to a use of turning ones logic against them.

...

In a nutshell, I dont know what the god is out there, but basically whatever it is, is the catalyst for there being something rather than nothing. But whatever it is, put the boundries (laws of physics, and etc.) in our universe, and sent it on its way. Conceptually if we have our boundaries, then something out there has to be boundless. And then here I would go into the physics problem of fine tuning, but that would get into a much much deeper conversation, with a lot of different concepts that I am sure you are not familiar with, that I would have to explain. I dont feel like writing a novel right now.

What dont you understand about my statement. I am stating that something has to be boundless relative to our universe. Unless you believe that time or causality is an illusion (which is not an unpopular argument), you would have to come to the same conclusion. Unless you want to just say that spacetime is there and it just does what it does. Which if newton didnt look up at the moon and think "the moon is falling around the earth like the apple falling and hitting my head," then this conversation would still be hand written and mailed. I only used the word deity for lack of a better term. Something thats boundless, something outside of our reality. Not really a good way to describe it conceptually, its like trying to describe string theory or higgs-boson, not really a good metaphor out there for it. It is more philosophy than it is science. But your problem is, is what you assume to be meant by the word god, you assume it to be referring to the fatherly figure that half of america talks about; and you show automatic hostility to that thought. Your making assumptions about what people believe without thinking.

 

[Hollie]

That being said, hollie there is no blueprint for a cancer cell. The body just doesnt say, "hey we have instructions to make cancer in this part of the body, lets get on it." It is a BREAKDOWN IN THE BLUEPRINT OF THE GENETIC CODE, that tells cells to stay in the s-phase for a period of time. In cancer there is pretty much no s-phase, just a continuous m-phase. Its not in a blueprint, it is the breakdown of the blueprint, kind of like aging.

Believers can assert the "omni's" of gods and not the anthropomorphic ones. Believers will assert that “he” (note the paternalistic attribute of the Abrahamic god) is perfection and then assign to him emotions like love, jealousy, anger, vengeance, and so on. Each of those attributes by definition assumes some lack or [/i]need[/i] that is required to be satisfied. This will not do in the Theistic argument, because it immediately defuses any claim that “he” is in some way eternally perfect. Now Idon't force anyone into this paradox, theists step into it wholeheartedly.

There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all existence (according to whatever version of god(s) you may believe in) is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the god(s) that cobbled it together. If cancer is a “natural consequence” unknown to the gods then you have removed an attribute: omniscience, that is assigned to them. That requires an imperfect god(s), one or more of them losing the attribute of “all knowing”. It’s a vicious circle that is utterly contradictory.

Things are the way they are because the gods want them precisely the way they are. And this includes a nasty and capricious nature which will kill people via floods and tornadoes and fires and earthquakes and cancer etc., none of which are essential to a world created by a God(s). He could have just as easily made it otherwise, he just didn't.

That Leukemia thing was a masterstroke of "design".

This is a terrible argument hollie, you are just going to run around in circles with them. That was my initial point. I understand the logic behind the argument just fine. But this argument winds up no where and holds no weight, and its usually the first thing that people point out against ID. If life was perfect, there would be no death. Everyone knows that this is not the case. Think about your arguments before you make them. Another problem with saying that Leukemia is the masterstroke of design, using that logic you would have to say that if it is not the masterstroke of design it is the masterstroke of evolution... which is not the case either, and it shows no understanding of cancer.

I will point out to loki though, that even though this is a bad argument, it is another example of turning around logic against someone.

I agree the argument is terrible but I think it defines the “god” paradigm. Either the gods are omni-everything or they’re not. If they’re not, someone will need to define which attributes of the gods are limited, and in what ways.

I actually did think about the argument before posting it. Does this mean that you will define for us the contradiction between omniscience and partial-omniscience?