Jump to content

Unintelligent Design


Recommended Posts

Correct. Because you are not actually separate from everything else.
I don't know if I should break out my Johnathan Livingston Seagull books, or my feminist manifesto.
"Natural selection" does not do any appreciating. NS is just our description of a phenomenon within the interconnected Pandora-like nature that we live in.
Pandora...I am seeing a pattern
BG really stepping up his game this week. This is good stuff.
SSSHHHH, I got a new play toy now that crow has left ( finally)
Exhibit A: What happens when a man falls in love with his ideas. Literally.
Pretty cool how I invented my ideas before I was born...It's a gift
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 345
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The purpose of life is to love God.When this is accomplished, the rest of life makes much more sense.
Okay, I'm in. Which one though? I was looking at Gods associated with creation and came up with these,Pan-gu from China's middle kingdon (yin/yang)Japan- Izanagi and Izanami who tooka spear and stirred up the earthThe Hindi Rig Veda who had a 1000 heads, eyes and feetThe greeks had Gaia (mother earth) who created Uranus as the sky to wrap around herself.Bor the Norse GodAhura Mazda (Zoroastrian)Apgu and Tiamat from BabylonAtum who willed himself into creationCoallicue the Earth Mother(had a necklace of hearts)Or simply the God of the Jews, Christians and Islams who made the earth in 6 days and then let Eve eat the appleI'm undecided.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh for crying out loud Mills grow a pair.VB is wrong here, you know he's wrong and you're too much of a sycophant to call him on it.I know you created this problem when you tried to tag vb earlier when you had dug a hole that you knew you were not getting out, but the Masked Hippy is not tagging you to relieve you, he is tagging you out of all further discussions.
Not quite, I'm just not arrogant enough to assume I know more about biology then a scientist does, particulary one who has shown he is extremley compitent on the subject.He is right. Natural selection is not "inteligent," there is no purpose behind what it does, it just does.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, I'm in. Which one though? I was looking at Gods associated with creation and came up with these,Pan-gu from China's middle kingdon (yin/yang)Japan- Izanagi and Izanami who tooka spear and stirred up the earthThe Hindi Rig Veda who had a 1000 heads, eyes and feetThe greeks had Gaia (mother earth) who created Uranus as the sky to wrap around herself.Bor the Norse GodAhura Mazda (Zoroastrian)Apgu and Tiamat from BabylonAtum who willed himself into creationCoallicue the Earth Mother(had a necklace of hearts)Or simply the God of the Jews, Christians and Islams who made the earth in 6 days and then let Eve eat the appleI'm undecided.
The fact that you give equal standing to anything that makes any vague reference to being God shows that you are not being honest in your search.I would suggest you read the Bible, the New testament first.This should give you a good beginning point to understand which one.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not quite, I'm just not arrogant enough to assume I know more about biology then a scientist does, particulary one who has shown he is extremley compitent on the subject.He is right. Natural selection is not "inteligent," there is no purpose behind what it does, it just does.
Solely?
Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that you give equal standing to anything that makes any vague reference to being God shows that you are not being honest in your search.I would suggest you read the Bible, the New testament first.This should give you a good beginning point to understand which one.
I agree with this. It effectively rules out the Jewish and Christian gods.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with this. It effectively rules out the Jewish and Christian gods.
Yea...Jesus never said He was God... :club: You have either been led astray, or are completely blind to what the Bible says.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand how you could get to that statement from what I said.I am only saying that the discussion is not off the table, and many have made the connection and acted on it. Therefore I am not saying it must become, I am saying it has led and therefore should be discussed.[sNIP]and don't forget I am not bringing this up randomly, there is a flow of the conversation that arrived at that point. you are kind of jumping in mid conversation and acting like my statement is the beginning.
I thought the flow of the conversation was about the plausibility of evolution. So, if I read you right now, eugenics has nothing to do with the plausibility of evolution. So why did you bring it up? Facts don't dictate ethics & values.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would suggest you read the Bible, the New testament first.
So, it's like Star Wars in this respect? Why didn't God write in the intended reading order?
Link to post
Share on other sites
So, it's like Star Wars in this respect? Why didn't God write in the intended reading order?
You can start OT first, as long as you are going to read it all.Think of it more like a quick start guide to the whole manual.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the flow of the conversation was about the plausibility of evolution. So, if I read you right now, eugenics has nothing to do with the plausibility of evolution. So why did you bring it up? Facts don't dictate ethics & values.
I only brought it up because during that particular moment of the debate it was a good way to try to get the other side to open their mind to the reality that both sides have warts that can be damaging to their cause, but that just as I don't think not understanding the ways of God completely means I can't know enough of them to trust God, and their side should realize that just because eugenics is a discipline based on evolution, it isn't the only direction we can go.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I only brought it up because during that particular moment of the debate it was a good way to try to get the other side to open their mind to the reality that both sides have warts that can be damaging to their cause . . .
It's the definition of the "sides" that I have a problem with.It's very easy to divide the world into 2 sides like this:People who are like meEverybody elseThat's all well and good until we try to talk to someone else with a different frame of reference. Anybody can try to gerrymander the dividing lines so that the opposition includes the undesirable parties (perhaps Nazis or terrorists) but it doesn't further the debate.
. . . but that just as I don't think not understanding the ways of God completely means I can't know enough of them to trust God, and their side should realize that just because eugenics is a discipline based on evolution, it isn't the only direction we can go.
I think I missed a question like this on the SAT.Incomplete knowledge of God is to trusting God as Eugenics is based on evolution is to not necessarily practicing eugenicsThis smells like something I might agree with but it breaks my parser so I'm not sure.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I missed a question like this on the SAT.Incomplete knowledge of God is to trusting God as Eugenics is based on evolution is to not necessarily practicing eugenicsThis smells like something I might agree with but it breaks my parser so I'm not sure.
You agree with me...you have to I'm right...
Link to post
Share on other sites
You can start OT first, as long as you are going to read it all.Think of it more like a quick start guide to the whole manual.
did this long ago. didn't change me or my life.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you don't defend your position, albeit wrong position, then you will lose all self-respect and will be a door mat your whole life.
In other words, it's most important to try to win every post.
Link to post
Share on other sites

ITT: BG is trolling the hell out of mills. And I'm enjoying it.VB and others continue to allow the patently absurd statements which litter nearly every BG post fly by and address other points.Basejester is quietly ratcheting up the intellectual and logical texture of the thread but is far too bland and non-confrontational to either entertain those who may be on the cusp of understanding his points/questions, or further instruct those who easily do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...