Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2017 6:53 PM
356 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,958 Year: 27,564/21,208 Month: 1,477/1,714 Week: 320/365 Day: 47/42 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
13NextFF
Author Topic:   the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 31 of 187 (810624)
05-31-2017 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by jar
05-31-2017 7:16 AM


New Marriage sexual Proposed Topic
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,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 05-31-2017 7:16 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 05-31-2017 11:00 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 32 of 187 (810626)
05-31-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ProtoTypical
05-30-2017 8:00 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-30-2017 8:00 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-31-2017 6:52 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 33 of 187 (810627)
05-31-2017 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by ProtoTypical
05-30-2017 10:10 PM


ProtoTypical writes:

We are assessing the performance of GOD.

That seems to be a rather large and unevidenced assumption.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-30-2017 10:10 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-31-2017 7:10 PM Taq has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 34 of 187 (810628)
05-31-2017 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Davidjay
05-30-2017 10:49 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Davidjay, posted 05-30-2017 10:49 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Davidjay, posted 05-31-2017 3:48 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29628
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 35 of 187 (810630)
05-31-2017 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Davidjay
05-31-2017 10:39 AM


There you go lying yet again Davidjay
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.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Davidjay, posted 05-31-2017 10:39 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 36 of 187 (810669)
05-31-2017 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Taq
05-31-2017 10:49 AM


Your responsibility Jar, man up..
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,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 05-31-2017 10:49 AM Taq has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 05-31-2017 5:08 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29628
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 37 of 187 (810677)
05-31-2017 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Davidjay
05-31-2017 3:48 PM


Re: Your responsibility Jar, man up..
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.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Davidjay, posted 05-31-2017 3:48 PM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1760
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 38 of 187 (810686)
05-31-2017 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Porosity
05-31-2017 12:32 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 12:32 AM Porosity has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 8:38 PM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 47 by ringo, posted 06-01-2017 11:58 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1760
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 39 of 187 (810687)
05-31-2017 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by jar
05-31-2017 7:14 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 05-31-2017 7:14 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-31-2017 7:07 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1760
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 40 of 187 (810688)
05-31-2017 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Taq
05-31-2017 10:44 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Taq, posted 05-31-2017 10:44 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29628
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 41 of 187 (810691)
05-31-2017 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by ProtoTypical
05-31-2017 6:41 PM


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.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-31-2017 6:41 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-01-2017 9:14 AM jar has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1760
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 42 of 187 (810692)
05-31-2017 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Taq
05-31-2017 10:47 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Taq, posted 05-31-2017 10:47 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 06-07-2017 12:46 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Porosity
Member
Posts: 156
From: MT, USA
Joined: 06-15-2013


Message 43 of 187 (810697)
05-31-2017 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ProtoTypical
05-31-2017 6:31 PM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-31-2017 6:31 PM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 06-01-2017 7:21 AM Porosity has not yet responded
 Message 54 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-01-2017 9:38 PM Porosity has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19234
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 44 of 187 (810727)
06-01-2017 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Porosity
05-31-2017 8:38 PM


Sexual Reproduction needs to be studied by The Silly Design Institute ...
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:
The Silly Design Institute's mission is to make Americans fully aware of both sides of the Design debate, whether they want to be or not.

We feel that both sides of the design debate need to be provided in schools and in the media, to inform the public and the students so that they can make up their own minds and not be dictated to by self-serving organizations, ...

The Silly Design Theory (SDT, not to be confused with STD) is based on a very simple set of concepts:

  • the existence of design in natural systems is obvious, whether it is a human eye, a bird wing or the flagellum of a bacteria, there is a feature with a purpose;
  • the preponderance of these purposeful features in all forms of life, from simple to complex, shows that a design process is at work;
  • that the debate over whether the design is the result of natural forces or the intent of some cosmic designer cannot be resolved by investigation of the designs, because the natural forces could be designed by the cosmic designer as the means to achieve the end purpose of the designs;
  • that the ultimate purpose of the designs can be determined by investigation of multitudes of features to see if they more accurately reflect (a) random design, the result of totally natural forces, (b) highly specific design, for some intelligent purpose, or (c) variations on a silly design, for some silly (entertainment, amusement, reality tv) purpose;
  • that the design purpose, as determined by rigorous scientific investigation, will then make clear whether the designer is (a) a Natural Nothing (NaNo), (b) an Intelligent Designer (IDr) or (c) a Cosmic Imp (CImp), and that this will then finally resolve whether there is or is not a designer as well as the nature of that designer: a metaphysical two-fer.

The Hypothesis to be tested, therefore, is that "life, the universe, and everything" show evidence of Silly Design (SD).


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, : ..


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Porosity, posted 05-31-2017 8:38 PM Porosity has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Davidjay, posted 06-01-2017 9:19 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1760
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 45 of 187 (810733)
06-01-2017 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by jar
05-31-2017 7:07 PM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 05-31-2017 7:07 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
13NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017