|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2349 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
This thread topic was proposed by me originally, and stolen by yourself and changed to make it a biological evolution thread on the varied ways the Lord reproduces His original Creation, whereas my topic was the sexuality of humans, and whether it was created or was by luck and chance evolution.
This way, you can as we see HERE, claim I am off topic if I interrupt evolutionists preaching to evolutionist. Oh well, same old tactics..... anyway I have proposed a new thread if anyone is brave enough to PROPOSE IT to the ********** It concerns marriage, sex, polyamory, bigamy etc.... as most E********** seem to be fr********* which would explain their P********** and lack thereof.Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science. Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Prototypical writes: You presume to know what the designer's objective might be. Oh the irony. The statement above was quickly followed by this statement:
Perhaps all of these failed life forms were merely stepping stones on the way to some ultimate objective. Perhaps the variety is the objective. In one moment you claim that no one can know the objectives of the designer, and then you turn around and propose what objectives the designer has. Go figure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
ProtoTypical writes: We are assessing the performance of GOD. That seems to be a rather large and unevidenced assumption.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Davidjay writes: Wow, you would mock God.... You would first need to provide evidence that there is a God and that this God had anything to do life on Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Davidjay writes: This thread topic was proposed by me originally, and stolen by yourself and changed to make it a biological evolution thread on the varied ways the Lord reproduces His original Creation, whereas my topic was the sexuality of humans, and whether it was created or was by luck and chance evolution. If this subject is different than what you proposed then I certainly stole nothing from you. Perhaps the difference is that I seem able to write a coherent initial post. This topic does have a theme, and the theme is neither your fantasies or rantings. Please try to stay on topic. The God you market is irrelevant in Science forums.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Davidjay  Suspended Member (Idle past 2349 days) Posts: 1026 From: B.C Canada Joined: |
No, thats your job and your responsibility..I cant force you to man up and be rersponsible for yourself. You have to choose to grow up and make decisions on your own.
If you reject HIM, thats your fault not mine. If you mock HIM, that again is your fault as I have WARNED you and others concerning such insane bravado. Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science. Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Davidjay writes: If you reject HIM, thats your fault not mine. If you mock HIM, that again is your fault as I have WARNED you and others concerning such insane bravado. It's been explained to you that the picayune god you created and marketed is irrelevant to this subject and so posting more of your nonsense serves no purpose and has no value. If you have anything relevant to the topic you are welcome to post but worthless drivel like what is quoted above has no worth, relevance, information or value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 369 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Aside from navel gazing, a designer does not follow and is not be needed or make sense in the bio chemical systems we observe here on earth. I agree but jar made the point that no designer would design such a system. My point is that the notion of a designer can not be dismissed by some perceived inefficiency in the nature of reproduction. It just doesn't follow especially if you don't know what the design objective was. I expect that there is no conscious entity behind the existence of the universe but not because I think that some potential GOD could have done a better job.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 369 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
If you wish to imagine some designer then we can only judge that designer based on the evidence at hand. I just take exception to the idea that we know what a properly designed universe would look like. I am fairly certain that I would strike out childhood cancer if I were GOD but I am also certain that if I were GOD then my perspective would be different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 369 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
In one moment you claim that no one can know the objectives of the designer, and then you turn around and propose what objectives the designer has. Go figure. I was offering possible alternatives to jar's assumed design objectives. The point was that no one can know what those objectives might have been.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
PT writes: I just take exception to the idea that we know what a properly designed universe would look like. I am fairly certain that I would strike out childhood cancer if I were GOD but I am also certain that if I were GOD then my perspective would be different. As I said, simply a cop out. Once you introduce the "Designer might have other plans" gambit then any reasoned discussion ceases. The reality is that we make judgements. Hopefully those judgements are based on evidence. There is evidence. That evidence can be used to make judgements.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 369 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
PT writes: We are assessing the performance of GOD. That seems to be a rather large and unevidenced assumption. You are misreading the argument. If we are contemplating the possibility that GOD exists then we should realize that we are not capable of critiquing anything that THEY might have done. You need a GOD's view to do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Porosity Member (Idle past 2114 days) Posts: 158 From: MT, USA Joined: |
My point is that the notion of a designer can not be dismissed by some perceived inefficiency in the nature of reproduction. It just doesn't follow especially if you don't know what the design objective was.
I don't think anyone is rejecting design just based on reproduction. We know what design looks like and we simply do not see anything being designed in nature.There is no design objective, the objective to survive and pass on genes i.e. natural selection, ultimately drives what we see in the structures of bio chemical entities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't think anyone is rejecting design just based on reproduction. We know what design looks like and we simply do not see anything being designed in nature. Curiously I think whenever design is being discussed we need to look at both sides of the controversy ... Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...:
quote: And it occurs to me that the variety and intermingling of the various ways of sexual reproduction would have a high SI value (SI - the Silliness Index - for comparing the relative silliness of different features, the higher the SI the higher the probability of Silly Design). Message 23 touches briefly on some aspects of this, but it needs to be studied in great detail to fully comprehend the depth of silliness involved. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 369 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
As I said, simply a cop out. Once you introduce the "Designer might have other plans" gambit then any reasoned discussion ceases. Are you insisting that some hypothetical designer have the same design objectives that you would have? We make judgements based on our values. What makes you think that a prime mover would have the same values as you do?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024