Intelligent design

Jun 6, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Indian Express

As Chief Election Commissioner S.Y. Quraishi retires, senior BJP leader L.K. Advani has asked the government to reconsider the appointment process to critical constitutional offices.

Comments (Page 12)

Showing posts 221 - 240 of306
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
GET

O Fallon, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#228
Dec 1, 2012
 
THEMAYAN wrote:
Intelligent design is so dead that it is increasingly being published in respected peer review journals. Not bad for being dead. I remember when the argument was....ID is not science because they dont get published in peer review science journals. What will the next ever changing goal post be? At the same time we are seeing more challenges to the modern synthesis in the peer reviewed current science literature.
Even more ironic, design theory is now being used in the field of Systems Biology. Again not bad for being dead.
Could you explain the evolution of the tongue of the European Green woodpecker? It seems to be very unique.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#229
Dec 1, 2012
 
GET wrote:
<quoted text>Could you explain the evolution of the tongue of the European Green woodpecker? It seems to be very unique.
Really? Why? If a reasonable explanation is given will you believe the theory of evolution or continue to ask foolish classes.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Topanga

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#230
Apr 8, 2013
 
Yep!....it's still dead

Those people were trying to ram junkscience down our throats.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#233
May 11, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
Yep!....it's still dead
Those people were trying to ram junkscience down our throats.
Claiming that biological reproductive species is fixed instead of evolved is not junk science!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#234
May 11, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Claiming that biological reproductive species is fixed instead of evolved is not junk science!
it is if you have no facts or evidence that support your claims.
THE LONE WORKER

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#235
May 11, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, it's still dead...HeHeHe.
Maybe its just sleeping.:3)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#236
May 11, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Claiming that biological reproductive species is fixed instead of evolved is not junk science!
Darn it. Curtis escaped the mothership again.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#237
May 13, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
it is if you have no facts or evidence that support your claims.
I do have facts and evidence to support my claim! Let me ask you, do nature contradict it's self?

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#238
May 13, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Darn it. Curtis escaped the mothership again.
FUNNY! I also asked them (whom-ever telepathically communicated with me before) to stop telepathically communicating with me and they/it stopped! Now it's just me and my self rationalizing in my mind, GOD i miss that!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#239
May 13, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
I do have facts and evidence to support my claim! Let me ask you, do nature contradict it's self?
Yes.

You do constantly.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#240
May 16, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
You do constantly.
Explain where I Do?!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#241
May 16, 2013
 
Reality.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#242
May 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Dude wrote:
Reality.
No, I don't contradict reality! On the other hand, your theory of evolution does and you fail to realize this! One species (LUCA) Last Universal Common Ancestor changing to 3 billion + opposite species over billions of years violates the law of non-contradiction!

"Biological / reproductive species"

"Two organisms that “are able” to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species."

>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Opposite Biological / reproductive species"

"Two organisms that “are not" able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species."

Source: Infinite Force
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#243
May 17, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't contradict reality! On the other hand, your theory of evolution does and you fail to realize this! One species (LUCA) Last Universal Common Ancestor changing to 3 billion + opposite species over billions of years violates the law of non-contradiction!
"Biological / reproductive species"
"Two organisms that “are able” to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species."
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"Opposite Biological / reproductive species"
"Two organisms that “are not" able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species."
Source: Infinite Force
Your first source (wiki) accepts evolution as a fact. You have violated the law of non-contradiction.

Your second source (I-F) is irrelevant. Evolution is a fact and does not violate the law of non-contradiction. You have violated the law of non-contradiction.

You will ignore that you have violated the law of non-contradiction. So you have violated the law of non-contradiction.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#244
May 17, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I don't contradict reality! On the other hand, your theory of evolution does and you fail to realize this! One species (LUCA) Last Universal Common Ancestor changing to 3 billion + opposite species over billions of years violates the law of non-contradiction!
"Biological / reproductive species"
"Two organisms that “are able” to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species."
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
"Opposite Biological / reproductive species"
"Two organisms that “are not" able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species."
Source: Infinite Force
The problem with your reasoning is a simple misunderstand of what words are and how they work.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#245
May 17, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with your reasoning is a simple misunderstand of what words are and how they work.
No nuggin, I know how words work. The problem is how evolution use opoosite words to explain what a species is. Nature do not contradict its self the theory of evolution does.

You want to shoot go ahead, I'm all ears!

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#246
May 17, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Your first source (wiki) accepts evolution as a fact. You have violated the law of non-contradiction.
Your second source (I-F) is irrelevant. Evolution is a fact and does not violate the law of non-contradiction. You have violated the law of non-contradiction.
You will ignore that you have violated the law of non-contradiction. So you have violated the law of non-contradiction.
Just because I use a site that supports evolution to make my point does not make it a violation of the law of non-contradiction. You got to do better then that!

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#247
May 17, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
No nuggin, I know how words work. The problem is how evolution use opoosite words to explain what a species is. Nature do not contradict its self the theory of evolution does.
You want to shoot go ahead, I'm all ears!
The word "species" is not what you think it is.

There is no such thing as a "species". "Species" is a term invented by humans to organize the world we see.

In the absence of humans, the word ceases to exist.

It's an incomplete and inaccurate term which is why it's not a part of modern biology which utilizes clades rather than the old fashion labels.

"Species" as a term is handy for describing groups of animals or differentiating between two groups which are similar but distinct.

However, as a description of the real world it will always fall short of being able to describe the full variety of what exists.

Don't mistake the fact that you can put a label on something for that thing actually being the label.

There is no contradiction in how evolution works, there's only a contradiction in your understanding of the utility of words like "species".

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#248
May 18, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The word "species" is not what you think it is.
There is no such thing as a "species". "Species" is a term invented by humans to organize the world we see.
In the absence of humans, the word ceases to exist.
It's an incomplete and inaccurate term which is why it's not a part of modern biology which utilizes clades rather than the old fashion labels.
"Species" as a term is handy for describing groups of animals or differentiating between two groups which are similar but distinct.
However, as a description of the real world it will always fall short of being able to describe the full variety of what exists.
Don't mistake the fact that you can put a label on something for that thing actually being the label.
There is no contradiction in how evolution works, there's only a contradiction in your understanding of the utility of words like "species".
Biological reproductive Species is a sound definition and their is no contradiction with me using that term. This is the only species term that I acccept.

"Biological / reproductive species Two organisms that are able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species".

>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#249
May 18, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
No nuggin, I know how words work.
You have violated the law of non-contradiction.
Infinite Force wrote:
The problem is how evolution use opoosite words to explain what a species is. Nature do not contradict its self the theory of evolution does.
You want to shoot go ahead, I'm all ears!
You lost this one years ago. At most you're referring to a label problem. Not an evolution problem. You have violated the law of non-contradiction.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 221 - 240 of306
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

17 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 min HTS 168,538
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 min SevenTee 106,013
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 min KAB 127,064
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 2 hr MikeF 13,476
Kevin Wingate: ID should be included in science... 18 hr llDayo 5
Science News (Sep '13) 21 hr Ricky F 2,671
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Wed MikeF 1,236
•••
•••
•••
•••