Unintelligent Design

[Balloon guy 158]

I never said aanything about "child molesters" not sure where you got this from.It is the sole purpose. But it is not 'higher' in a moralistic sense.

No, I said a the driving force behind what we do concerns the protection and survival of the species... I never said that is the reason why we exist... I don't think there is a reason.I am not 100 pct sure on how homosexuality factors in. ANd instead of pretending to know the answer ( as you usually do) I have no problem admiotting that are certain things I'm not sure aboutAgain, never said it was the purpose of existance...

When you tell me that I am wrong about the purpose of life and declare that you know the SOLE purpose, you are in fact saying it is the purpose for existance.You don't get to declare that my understanding is wrong without also admitting you know the real reason.Otherwise you are just being argumentative for argumentative sake.So which is it?Are you sure that I am wrong? Or are you just arguing to hear yourself type?

[Mills 0]

I love when you resort to common creationist tactics....Instead of quote mining my posts, why not be a little honest? Silly prospect, I know.I used the words "sole purpose" in response to this question from you."The survival of the species then is your 'higher purpose' that dictates our actions"?Nowhere in that question, nor in my reply is the word existance mentioned.. No one mentioned it. You asked me what dictates our actions... I answered.. and maintain that answer.Or do you have that special kind of amniesa that makes you forget things that happened an hour ago?

[Mills 0]

You don't get to declare that my understanding is wrong without also admitting you know the real reason.

All we are talking about here is the question of how homosexuality factors into natural selection.Neither one of us knowsYou are still wrong about the broadstrokes of both evolution and natural selection tho

[Balloon guy 158]

I love when you resort to common creationist tactics....Instead of quote mining my posts, why not be a little honest? Silly prospect, I know.I used the words "sole purpose" in response to this question from you."The survival of the species then is your 'higher purpose' that dictates our actions"?Nowhere in that question, nor in my reply is the word existance mentioned.. No one mentioned it. You asked me what dictates our actions... I answered.. and maintain that answer.Or do you have that special kind of amniesa that makes you forget things that happened an hour ago?

This is a propogandist wet dream post;You have reduced the value of my argument by equating it to a fictional 'creationist tactic'. Of course first step is always to dehuminize your subject.Then you make a pejorative of 'quote mining' you by implying that it is dishonest.Tthink about that, it's dishonest to quote you.Then you pretend that existance has a completely different meaning than our survival and actions ( the two things I mentioned in your own 'quote mining of me') Of course you didn't say existance..so therefore the word cannot be interchanged for the meaning that you did give, our survival and our actions.I gvuess our existance has other facates besides our actions and our surviving, I am just stymied as to what they are.But you're right, running behind the 'definitions defense' is your best course of action. You don't want to get stuck defending what you said.You homophobe

[Balloon guy 158]

All we are talking about here is the question of how homosexuality factors into natural selection.Neither one of us knowsYou are still wrong about the broadstrokes of both evolution and natural selection tho

Deflection.I do know how homosexuality factors into natural selection, but I am able to be honest. I am not forced to change my understanding of what natural selection is to fit another bias I have towards political correctness.Your two biases are in conflict, and as such you are in a quandry. Irrational beliefs usually end up like this.And so far you have not proven that I am wrong about evolution or natural selection

[Mills 0]

This is a propogandist wet dream post;You have reduced the value of my argument by equating it to a fictional 'creationist tactic'. Of course first step is always to dehuminize your subject.Then you make a pejorative of 'quote mining' you by implying that it is dishonest.Tthink about that, it's dishonest to quote you.Then you pretend that existance has a completely different meaning than our survival and actions ( the two things I mentioned in your own 'quote mining of me') Of course you didn't say existance..so therefore the word cannot be interchanged for the meaning that you did give, our survival and our actions.I gvuess our existance has other facates besides our actions and our surviving, I am just stymied as to what they are.But you're right, running behind the 'definitions defense' is your best course of action. You don't want to get stuck defending what you said.You homophobe

Okay well, it's clear you don't know what "quote mining" is. It's not just quoting someone. It's finding a quote out of contex to support your position, which is exactly what you did.existance means to exist, to be here. What else could it possibly mean... The word can't be interchanged with something else arbitrarily to make it mean something you want it to mean, no.

[Mills 0]

And so far you have not proven that I am wrong about evolution or natural selection

you do a fine job of that all by yourself.Also, I love when you make refrence to the 'definitions game.' SOme of us actually care about the meaning of what we say enough to get our terms correct... what kinda crazy game is that?

[Balloon guy 158]

you do a fine job of that all by yourself.

This is just a furtherance of the old wives tale.Used when facts are out of reach

[Balloon guy 158]

Okay well, it's clear you don't know what "quote mining" is. It's not just quoting someone. It's finding a quote out of contex to support your position, which is exactly what you did.existance means to exist, to be here. What else could it possibly mean... The word can't be interchanged with something else arbitrarily to make it mean something you want it to mean, no.

Fancy that, showing you by your words you were wrong is incorrect...learn something everyday.Definition defense is a common tactic of the evolutionist.You are just following your natural ways

[Mills 0]

This is just a furtherance of the old wives tale.Used when facts are out of reach

no, it's pretty evident by your posts actually.

[Mills 0]

learn something everyday.

If only you really did.

[BaseJester 1]

There is no logic to your comparison.Evolution teaches that certain traits are desirable, that other ones are not.We breed many animals to get the traits we think are better, and try to breed out the traits we don't like.Why is doing that to humans different?Don't couples who go to get invitro do this by selecting one or both of the contributors for their child? Are they not practicing a mild example of eugenics?I understand your repulsive reflex here, you have inside you a God given sense of right and wrong.But on paper, either we protect the gene pool, or we become what the movie Idiocracy predicted. As long as we are randomly formed life forms with equal value to a tree in terms of purpose and value., then the act of eugenics is nothing more than natural selection rearing her amoral head and trying to create the best life form it can through the tools at hand. To deny that is to be irrational to the entire meaning of evolution.

Evolution is not a philosophy, it's a scientific theory. It doesn't teach us things with an intent. I disagree with the whole way you're arguing here and it seems inconsistent with religion in general. It sounds like, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're arguing that even if evolution truly and objectively occurred, we should not believe in it because the implication of believing in it would be eugenics, which is evil.In short, is your goal to believe things that are true? Furthermore, it seems that you would have the same arguments without the natural selection component of evolution. Isn't genetics itself sufficient to trigger your denial by association with eugenics? Why don't you deny genetics?

[Randy Reed 0]

When you tell me that I am wrong about the purpose of life and declare that you know the SOLE purpose, you are in fact saying it is the purpose for existance.You don't get to declare that my understanding is wrong without also admitting you know the real reason.Otherwise you are just being argumentative for argumentative sake.So which is it?Are you sure that I am wrong? Or are you just arguing to hear yourself type?

And what exactly is the "purpose" of life? The purpose of existence?This is totally semantics but if there is a purpose in life it perhaps is RNA's "desire" to self-replicate.

[vbnautilus 48]

Depends what you mean by 'purpose.' Natural selection helps organisms survive, that's the purpose it serves.

Can't really agree with this.

The gene pool is being deluded, and has been since Adam and Eve.

diluted?

They are getting nastier everyday, and you add in the intentional manipulations by man...our lives on earth are numbered

If you'd rather live back in a cave with an average lifespan of 27 years be my guest.

It is possible to discuss the notion that if there is no 'higher purpose' than there is also no reason to not live selfishly.

This is incorrect. Turns out living "selfishly" doesn't actually serve one's interests.

The survival of the species then is your 'higher purpose' that dictates our actions?

It is the sole purpose.

Natural selection is not concerned with the survival of any particular species. It doesn't even know what a species is.

1. yea, but you said that I said it. Score another one for you.2. To be honest, that's beyond the scope of my knowledge... ask VB. my first instinct would be to say no, as.. of course, it's still around. There are some studies that suggest that genes relating to homosexuality are beneficial because, when women inherit male homosexual genes, they become more attracted to men, and vice versa which leads to more reproduction.

All of this depends on how you define homosexuality. Animals rarely engage in exlusively homosexual sex, except in certain recent human contexts where people assume a homosexual identity. Even in those individuals, this kind of behavior does not preclude procreation -- many gay men and women have children. So it's not necessarily an issue that even comes into play in natural selection.

[Mills 0]

Can't really agree with this.

which part dont you agree with?

[vbnautilus 48]

which part dont you agree with?

That natural selection has a purpose, and that its main concern is with organisms surviving.

[Mills 0]

well, yea, i get that i was wrong about that... but in the highlighted section all I said was that was the purpose it serves, as in, that's what it does.. Or do you object the word 'purpose' having anything to do with the term 'natural selection...' yea.. I see what ur sayin

[vbnautilus 48]

well, yea, i get that i was wrong about that... but in the highlighted section all I said was that was the purpose it serves, as in, that's what it does.. Or do you object the word 'purpose' having anything to do with the term 'natural selection...' yea.. I see what ur sayin

I mean there's a few embedded issues. One is that most biologists agree that the unit on which natural selection works is the gene -- that is it is a mechanism by which genes propagate themselves. Yes, they do so largely in the package of living organisms, but from this perspective the organism is not really the main concern of natural selection, the gene is. But more to the point of this discussion, purpose implies some kind of prior goal, and so that does not seem appropriate when talking about NS.

[Balloon guy 158]

Evolution is not a philosophy, it's a scientific theory. It doesn't teach us things with an intent. I disagree with the whole way you're arguing here and it seems inconsistent with religion in general. It sounds like, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're arguing that even if evolution truly and objectively occurred, we should not believe in it because the implication of believing in it would be eugenics, which is evil.In short, is your goal to believe things that are true? Furthermore, it seems that you would have the same arguments without the natural selection component of evolution. Isn't genetics itself sufficient to trigger your denial by association with eugenics? Why don't you deny genetics?

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.Kind of like saying a person is an anarchist, that doesn't mean they have to be a rapist, but the conclusion is a logical possibility and therefore is open for discussion.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.

[Balloon guy 158]

If you'd rather live back in a cave with an average lifespan of 27 years be my guest.

Pretty sure the average age has always been 40.Oh wait, back pre-flood the average age was over 500...is that when you meant?Yes diluted...stupid firefox gave me the wrong correct spelling?

Turns out living "selfishly" doesn't actually serve one's interests.

So you don't serve yourself by being selfish? And this is because Natural Selection is able to step out of the individual and appreciate the collective whole of the species? Kind of like the trees in Avatar?

Natural selection is not concerned with the survival of any particular species. It doesn't even know what a species is.

Careful, you will soon be classified as not knowing what evolution is and as such will never be allowed to question it further...

All of this depends on how you define homosexuality. Animals rarely engage in exlusively homosexual sex, except in certain recent human contexts where people assume a homosexual identity. Even in those individuals, this kind of behavior does not preclude procreation -- many gay men and women have children. So it's not necessarily an issue that even comes into play in natural selection.

Reminds me of the guy at the cigar store the other day who was called a fag, he took out $100 and put it on the counter and said "You lick my inner thighs and if I get an erection than I'm a fag and you get the $100"In other words...you're trying to delude the discussion and avoid the reality. Yes delude..

[Balloon guy 158]

which part dont you agree with?

That natural selection has a purpose, and that its main concern is with organisms surviving.

well, yea, i get that i was wrong about that... but in the highlighted section all I said was that was the purpose it serves, as in, that's what it does.. Or do you object the word 'purpose' having anything to do with the term 'natural selection...' yea.. I see what ur sayin

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.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.Now call vb the dirty hippy he is, and express your claim that evolution does in fact care about the furtherance of the species like a man.Otherwise ALLLLLLL your future planned "You don't know what evolution is" comments will be tainted with the stench of hypocrisy.Do you really want to so easily lay down your principles and let vb castrate you?Used to be a time when a man would fight for his honor, even though honor is completely at odds with the notion of a natural selection and in fact places another huge problem on the lie of evolution's doorstep by being around at all.

[Balloon guy 158]

And what exactly is the "purpose" of life? The purpose of existence?This is totally semantics but if there is a purpose in life it perhaps is RNA's "desire" to self-replicate.

The purpose of life is to love God.When this is accomplished, the rest of life makes much more sense.

[vbnautilus 48]

So you don't serve yourself by being selfish?

Correct. Because you are not actually separate from everything else.

And this is because Natural Selection is able to step out of the individual and appreciate the collective whole of the species? Kind of like the trees in Avatar?

"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.

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.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.Now call vb the dirty hippy he is, and express your claim that evolution does in fact care about the furtherance of the species like a man.Otherwise ALLLLLLL your future planned "You don't know what evolution is" comments will be tainted with the stench of hypocrisy.Do you really want to so easily lay down your principles and let vb castrate you?Used to be a time when a man would fight for his honor, even though honor is completely at odds with the notion of a natural selection and in fact places another huge problem on the lie of evolution's doorstep by being around at all.

BG really stepping up his game this week. This is good stuff.

The purpose of life is to love God.When this is accomplished, the rest of life makes much more sense.

Exhibit A: What happens when a man falls in love with his ideas. Literally.

[Randy Reed 0]

The purpose of life is to love God.When this is accomplished, the rest of life makes much more sense.

Why?

[Balloon guy 158]

Why?

Isaiah 29:16You turn things around! Shall the potter be considered as equal with the clay, That what is made would say to its maker, "He did not make me"; Or what is formed say to him who formed it, "He has no understanding "?New American Standard Bible (©1995)