Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Creationism
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 154 (114190)
06-10-2004 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by crashfrog
06-10-2004 3:16 PM


Nature didn't produce the baby, the baby is the result of the itelligent design of living things.
CF:
Wait... what? JP, do you need to be told where babies come from?
John Paul:
Well I know nature had nothing to do with mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2004 3:16 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2004 6:57 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 06-11-2004 8:15 AM John Paul has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 47 of 154 (114245)
06-10-2004 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by John Paul
06-10-2004 3:46 PM


Well I know nature had nothing to do with mine.
Your baby didn't gestate in a uterus?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 3:46 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Silent H, posted 06-11-2004 9:59 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 50 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 10:56 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 48 of 154 (114383)
06-11-2004 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by John Paul
06-10-2004 3:46 PM


it's nice to romantically look at things and declare them miracles and testaments to god.
but tell me a few years down the line if it has your eyes or your wife's. whose nose does it have? lips? hair? maybe not yours, maybe your father's, or your wife's uncle...
see, that's genetics. alleles. from one generation to the next. which, i do believe is the definition of biological evolution, one generation at a time.
although, if it looks nothing like either of you, or anyone in your family, maybe it's something in favor of special creation, one generation at a time. although, usually, the explanation is far more banal and heartbreaking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by John Paul, posted 06-10-2004 3:46 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 11:01 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 49 of 154 (114404)
06-11-2004 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
06-10-2004 6:57 PM


Your baby didn't gestate in a uterus?
What, and actually work at a pregnancy by using a uterus like the rest of the suckers?
He got his directly from God's online baby store!
Just as this site absolutely proves that life begins at conception, it also proves that babies are in fact manufactured by ID.
Of course I now see (from the line of babies they have if you scroll down) that babies are actually quite different from each stage of pregnancy to the next with no real transitional form between them. In fact, the online shop admits they don't have any known baby types before eight weeks.
This has led me to the conclusion that the first babies are created only at eight weeks of pregnancy and then replaced by wholly new "special creations" of the next stages of pregnancy in turn.
In this way, just like the various proto-models are used to create an individual car, God uses various "preemie" models of babies before settling on the final version created for actual birth.
Each one is totally separate and alive... and if you're smart you'll buy them all to cherish every proto-type used by the Great IDer to reach the final "birth baby".
Heheheh... doesn't that line of babies remind you of Haeckel?
This message has been edited by holmes, 06-11-2004 09:00 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2004 6:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 154 (114425)
06-11-2004 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by crashfrog
06-10-2004 6:57 PM


Well I know nature had nothing to do with mine.
CF:
Your baby didn't gestate in a uterus?
John Paul:
Yes, my wife's, not nature's. I am unaware that nature even has a uterus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 06-10-2004 6:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by MrHambre, posted 06-11-2004 11:06 AM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 154 (114427)
06-11-2004 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by arachnophilia
06-11-2004 8:15 AM


Arach:
it's nice to romantically look at things and declare them miracles and testaments to god.
John Paul:
I haven't done that here. But I could. Ya see my daughter was born 10 weeks early @ 2 lbs 8 ounces. By rights I should have lost them both (wife & baby).
Arach:
see, that's genetics. alleles. from one generation to the next. which, i do believe is the definition of biological evolution, one generation at a time.
John Paul:
Actually that is the deception of biological evolution. Evolutionists want people to believe that just because allele frequency changes over time and traits are passed down to future generations that a land animal can evolve into a cetacean. That is like saying since I can run a mile I can run a marathon.
Methinks you don't know what Creationists say about the change in allele frequency over time, ie biological evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 06-11-2004 8:15 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by arachnophilia, posted 06-12-2004 2:59 AM John Paul has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 52 of 154 (114428)
06-11-2004 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by John Paul
06-11-2004 10:56 AM


Give Me a Break
quote:
I am unaware that nature even has a uterus.
So your wife designed her baby? Her intelligent agency was necessary to sequence the baby's genome and conduct the entire process of cell division that nature is unable to facilitate?
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 10:56 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 11:21 AM MrHambre has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 154 (114432)
06-11-2004 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by MrHambre
06-11-2004 11:06 AM


Re: Give Me a Break
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am unaware that nature even has a uterus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
So your wife designed her baby?
John Paul:
Only someone like you could come to that conclusion by reading the posts.
MrH:
Her intelligent agency was necessary to sequence the baby's genome and conduct the entire process of cell division that nature is unable to facilitate?
John Paul:
Where was nature during her pregnancy or during copulation? I didn't see it in our bedroom. I didn't see it in the hospital.
Please show us where nature can bring life from non-living matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by MrHambre, posted 06-11-2004 11:06 AM MrHambre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by MrHambre, posted 06-11-2004 11:24 AM John Paul has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1392 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 54 of 154 (114434)
06-11-2004 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by John Paul
06-11-2004 11:21 AM


Re: Give Me a Break
quote:
Where was nature during her pregnancy or during copulation? I didn't see it in our bedroom.
Bad visuals. Severe trauma. Dan, pass me the lye, will you? I'm getting rid of these eyes once and for all.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 11:21 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 11:48 AM MrHambre has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 154 (114441)
06-11-2004 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by MrHambre
06-11-2004 11:24 AM


one break, coming up...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where was nature during her pregnancy or during copulation? I didn't see it in our bedroom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MrH:
Bad visuals. Severe trauma. Dan, pass me the lye, will you? I'm getting rid of these eyes once and for all.
John Paul:
That wouldn't be a great loss as it is clear you didn't use them anyway.
For anyone else reading this:
I used the "I didn't see nature" line to directly respond to MrH's "We don't see the designer", crap. Also the ONLY way nature had anything to do with babies is if (and only if) life arose from non-life via purely natural processes (and then to the question, where did nature come from?). Seeing there isn't any evidence to support life from non-life via purely natural processes why, besides belief, why would anyone infer that it did (besides faith)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by MrHambre, posted 06-11-2004 11:24 AM MrHambre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Silent H, posted 06-11-2004 1:05 PM John Paul has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 154 (114451)
06-11-2004 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Loudmouth
06-09-2004 5:25 PM


Re: What is IDC?
LM:
Actually, the bigger stretch is inferring design in biological systems by referring to non-reproducing, man made designs.
John Paul:
LoL! I am laughing because Stephen Jones opens his book Darwin's Ghost using an analogy of manufactured goods. Go figure...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Loudmouth, posted 06-09-2004 5:25 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Loudmouth, posted 06-11-2004 4:02 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 57 of 154 (114464)
06-11-2004 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by John Paul
06-11-2004 11:48 AM


Re: one break, coming up...
I used the "I didn't see nature" line to directly respond to MrH's "We don't see the designer", crap.
But you could see the nature. Unless you had the lights off (or your eyes closed) you should have seen all the organs responsible for the generation and distribution of semen, as well as what "caught" them.
If you had conceived artificially you could even watch the sperm puncturing the egg and fertilization begin.
With special cameras you could even watch the gestational being grow after implantation.
All of that was natural processes using the natural materials interacting right before your eyes.
Nowhere (unless you went with artificial insemination) did you see any 3rd party entering the picture at any time to rearrange pieces and parts and "construct" your baby.
I am unsure why admitting that we see nothing but the materials found in nature, interacting naturally, is crap, but asserting an intelligent force we do not see and have never seen built your baby "by design" is not.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 11:48 AM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 1:21 PM Silent H has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 58 of 154 (114465)
06-11-2004 1:07 PM


Wanted: productive discussion!
The debate is supposed to be fun, and I think having fun with quips, one liners and non sequiturs is great, I encourage it, but not if that's all you're doing. At some point there has to be some substance. I'd like to again encourage the participants in this thread to bring more substance to their contributions. I prefer not to single anyone out at this time, but if I have to post like this again to this thread I will, and it will include posting restrictions both for instigators and repliers in kind.
Please don't misunderstand. The jabbing back and forth by both sides can continue, but there needs to be some substance.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by John Paul, posted 06-11-2004 1:22 PM Admin has replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 154 (114470)
06-11-2004 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Silent H
06-11-2004 1:05 PM


Re: one break, coming up...
holmes:
But you could see the nature. Unless you had the lights off (or your eyes closed) you should have seen all the organs responsible for the generation and distribution of semen, as well as what "caught" them.
John Paul:
As I have stated- you can only consider my or my wife's body parts as being part of nature if life originated via purely natural processes.
holmes:
If you had conceived artificially you could even watch the sperm puncturing the egg and fertilization begin.
With special cameras you could even watch the gestational being grow after implantation.
All of that was natural processes using the natural materials interacting right before your eyes.
John Paul:
That is nothing but assertion. Where is your evidence that sexual reproduction originated via purely natural processes?
holmes:
Nowhere (unless you went with artificial insemination) did you see any 3rd party entering the picture at any time to rearrange pieces and parts and "construct" your baby.
John Paul:
And nowhere has anyone observed purely natural processes give life from non-life and give sexual reproduction to asexual populations.
holmes:
I am unsure why admitting that we see nothing but the materials found in nature, interacting naturally, is crap, but asserting an intelligent force we do not see and have never seen built your baby "by design" is not.
John Paul:
Just because something is found in nature does NOT mean it has natural origins. My house is in the woods. My house was designed and built by an intelligent agency. When we observe nature designing specified complexity I will understand your position. As of now we have never observed this, so why infer it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Silent H, posted 06-11-2004 1:05 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Silent H, posted 06-11-2004 2:42 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 70 by crashfrog, posted 06-11-2004 8:31 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 154 (114471)
06-11-2004 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Admin
06-11-2004 1:07 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
I have asked what is Intelligent Design Creationism and have been met with silence. Go figure...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Admin, posted 06-11-2004 1:07 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Silent H, posted 06-11-2004 2:56 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 73 by Admin, posted 06-12-2004 10:41 AM John Paul has replied
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2004 5:29 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024