Originally posted by whobdamandog
How about you and xyz refute each of the points made in the original post.line by line..paragraphy by paragraph..whatever..come on now. If you have any trouble, just ask one of the "engineers" who builds the TV antennas to help you out..😉
They're not gonna do it, your just wasting your time,like I did.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
So if he gets banned, is it for socking, or for achieving new and embarrassing heights of stupidity. Both are bannable offences...aren't they?
i dont know...i feel like we should contact some abnormal psychology experts to study this guy. i think it would be irresponsible of the mods to just throw him away. think of what they could learn.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
So if he gets banned, is it for socking, or for achieving new and embarrassing heights of stupidity. Both are bannable offences...aren't they?
Which one would get banned? 😆 jk
If the two wear to go into a gaming thread, would he be playing with himself? 😱
Totally rhetorical...
Originally posted by PVS
i dont know...i feel like we should contact some abnormal psychology experts to study this guy. i think it would be irresponsible of the mods to just throw him away. think of what they could learn.
I could use this as my dissertation....
Too bad I've got a few years yet before I have to do that.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
WHAT!?This is possibly the stupidest thing I have ever read. Maybe. Top 5 definitely.
Um, a dog is still the same species as a dog. A Chihuahua could pound a Great Dane and have puppies. Different breeds of dog are interbred all the time.
*sigh* This is getting tiring.
They can but don't, their physiologically incapable of interbreeding.
Originally posted by Lana
I could use this as my dissertation....Too bad I've got a few years yet before I have to do that.
well, now you have a head start. spend this time backtracking his posting history and document his fall from initial superiority complexto a complete and total meltdown. then you can try to figure it all out when the time comes.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
They can but don't, their physiologically incapable of interbreeding.
Again, I hope you realize what you just said. "They can...but they're incapable" Well which is it?
They are physically capable of having puppies, and you know what, I bet a breeder has already gotten them to breed.
What you need is "monkies and dogs cant mate'' because they are two actual different species. not just different breeds of the same animal.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Again, I hope you realize what you just said. "They can...but they're incapable" Well which is it?They are physically capable of having puppies, and you know what, I bet a breeder has already gotten them to breed.
What you need is "monkies and dogs cant mate'' because they are two actual different species. not just different breeds of the same animal.
No I don't need a monkey and a dog, The definition of species is Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups. They don't interbreed so they are a different species, have you heard of behavioral isolation?
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/Speciation2/sld014.htm
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
The fact that it's rarer than two chihuahuas or two great danes doesnt mean it doesnt happen.so you arent correcting what im saying. because its 100% correct already.
Species has a weak definition, but by the rule of speciation they're considered another species because they don't interbreed, therefore it's an example of speciation.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Species has a weak definition, but by the rule of speciation they're considered another species because they don't interbreed, therefore it's an example of speciation.
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus Species
Species has a pretty clear definition, considering it's how animals are even classified. A dog is a dog is a dog. And they do interbreed, you're making a sweeping generalization.
Again, its comparable to saying two different races of humans don't interbreed. Yea, couples of the same race are common, but it's not that races just flat out don't interbreed.
So Im still correct. Again.
Re: The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design
Originally posted by KharmaDog
So if he gets banned, is it for socking, or for achieving new and embarrassing heights of stupidity. Both are bannable offences...aren't they?
Originally posted by Lana
There's two seperate matches between the two, as well as a flag.
There are plenty of way's to apparently "match" others ip's. This is getting ridiculous.
The guy clearly is a hacker, and socks over 30 pages using the screen names "blue nocturne", "lord xyz", "teh smart guy." I've also seen him sock in other threads using names like "Ushomefree", "Nuclear Winter"
Unfortunately no banning comes about from his behavior.
But because I post a picture of some bud ugly chick that was linked to in a "public" profile I get banned? How ridiculous..🙄😆
Anyway..getting back to the original topic of the thread..seeing as how going off-topic is also a bannable offense..😉 I'd really like for someone to adress this post, in their own words. Come on now Lana, certainly since you've demonstrated your astounding intellect in so many of our other debates, I expect you to be the first one to strike every aspect of this post down.😉
The floor is now yours sweety..😉
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Thought it might be a good idea to summarize what exactly ID is for the many laman who dogmatically and unquestionably follow Darwinian theory within these forums. Enjoy.- Whob
**********************************************
Upon observing and studying the earth and its inhabitants, it is quite apparent that it is comprised of a large amount of diverse organisms and systems. From the simplest of organisms in nature such as the one celled ameba, to the intricate systems of proteins and amino acids that make up DNA, it seems more often than not much of the processes that make up life have logical patterns to them.
Some believe that these complex systems originated from a series of random mutations and chemical processes gradually over the years. This philosophical belief system is the embodiment of the widely excepted scientific theory known as Evolution.
In recent years, however, many scientists are starting to question the validity of the widely accepted evolutionary theory, particularly the aspect of it that subscribes to complex organisms evolving from simpler organisms through random circumstances. These scientists suggest that it would mathematically improbable for randomness to initiate the start of any complex system. In lieu of Evolutionary theory, they adhere to a study which suggests that some form of intelligence designed these systems. This theory that describes life as being created by some form of intelligence is entitled Intelligent Design(ID), and it is one of the most controversial theories presented amongst the modern scientific community.
The concept of nature having a design to it is nothing new. Many liken it to the design theory that proceeded it entitled Creationism, which is exclusively based off of the Christian religion. Although many ID scientists are indeed Christian, the theory itself is not exclusively based on Christian doctrine nor is it based on the supernatural. Instead it is based on understanding the natural complexities that make up nature, and the impossibility of such perfect conditions to arise from random circumstance.
In 1802, theologian Whilliam Paley presented a theory entitled the Watchmaker Design Thesis. The following is an excerpt from his thesis:
The “rock” in the thesis is representative of a simplistic organism, while the “clock” is representative of a complex one. Using this analogy, Paley was asserting that the more complex an object is, greater is the likely hood that the object was at some point intelligently created. As simple as his thesis may sound, this type of rationale is the basis behind modern design theory.
Biology is but one of the many modern scientific facets that have assisted in giving the design theory credibility. In 1996, biochemist Michael Behe devised a theory, which expanded upon Paley’s initial Watchmaker thesis. Behe described biological systems as being too complicated on a molecular level, or too irreducibly complex to be formed by random processes within an organism and its environment.
Many biological systems are composed of codependent parts. Removing any part within these systems would cause them to not function properly, and in many cases not function at all. These irreducibly complex systems as Behe defines them, could not be reduced into simpler ones based on the dependency each part has with another. By adhering to Behe’s rationale, one would then have to attribute such a process as being part of a design, as opposed to being initiated from unplanned circumstances.
Modern concepts involving mathematics and statistics also shed new light on the validity of the design theory. Mathematician Whilliam Dembski suggests that it is statistically impossible to define complex organisms as the byproduct of random events. There are three core components to Dembski’s thesis. These components relate to the relationships of objects that are in a string, or a series of objects that have some form of coexistence. (3)
The first component, or contingency as Dembski terms it, relates to the freedom of choice objects within a string have. The second component, complexity, refers to the inability of a string’s creation to be defined by mere chance. (4)
Dembski asserts that one can only define a string’s creation as being unplanned if it is made up of very few contingent components. For example the word “an” can be thought of as a simple string. The words that make up a short story can be thought of as a complex string. It is somewhat probable to surmise that one can randomly throw two letters together on a page and create a simple word such as “an.” However, it is grossly illogical to assume that hundreds of letters can be thrown together at random on a page to create a story. The probability of the later string being generated from random circumstance would be around 10^-150, or in laman’s terms nearly
impossible. (5)With such dramatic findings being presented, one can only conclude that the complexity of the string alludes to the third component of Dembski’s design theory being true. This third component or specification as he defines it, asserts that some type of intelligent pattern exists within the complex string and that the intelligence demonstrated within the pattern alludes to it being designed. (6)
Although ID greatly contradicts much of modern evolutionary theory on a philosophical level, there is one core belief that it shares with it. Microevolution, sometimes termed variation or adaptation, is generally the term used when describing this type of evolution. Examples of microevolution are represented in different species of dogs, cats, fish, and other organisms within a particular family. It is important to note, however, that ID does not support the concept known as macroevolution, which theorizes that species of different families at some point randomly evolved into species of another family. The existence of this type of evolution is widely debated between the proponents of both theories, and at this time no conclusive specimens have been found to confirm this type of evolution as being possible.
1. Natural Theology; or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, 12th edition Paley. Pg. 3.
2. Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.Behe.
Free Press, 1996, pg. 39.3. Review of Whilliam Dembski Intelligent Design the Bridge Between Science and Theology. Korthoff. World Wide Web, 2002. http://www.home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44.htm
4. Review of Whilliam Dembski Intelligent Design the Bridge Between Science and Theology. Korthoff. World Wide Web, 2002. http://www.home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44.htm.
5. Review of Whilliam Dembski Intelligent Design the Bridge Between Science and Theology. Korthoff. World Wide Web, 2002. http://www.home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho44.htm.
As soon as someone responds to this argument, post by post, without deviating from the initial topic, socking or trolling, I'll respond again.
Re: Re: The Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design
Originally posted by whobdamandog
As soon as someone responds to this argument, post by post, without deviating from the initial topic, socking or trolling, I'll respond again. [/B]
Forget about what I just stated, we all know what's stated above is not going to happen..😉
Oh well my friends, it is definitely time for me to bid you adieu once again. Once again, I hope you all have learned something.
Fin
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Forget about what I just stated, we all know what's stated above is not going to happen..😉Oh well my friends, it is definitely time for me to bid you adieu once again. Once again, I hope you all have learned something.
Fin
we have learned nothing.
however what we already knew is that much more clear.
1-you will stoop to any low to "win the thread", even if it means creating an opponent and striking down their weak and flawed argument 100,000,000 billion times while ignoring the hard hitting questions.
isnt that right retardo?
retardo the bible thumper: "i just made poopy in my pants again!"
2-you have dialup internet access
3-you have quite a way of denying that EVERYONE reading here knows exactly what you did, and you look even more pathetic for trying to blame "the hackers".
4-you are but a creature of habit, and once you have exposed yourself once again as a pathetic antisocial reject who will do anything conceivable to troll a forum and try to look intelligent, you will ly low for a week or two and then come back pretending it never happened. perhaps you should change your handle to "atheletes foot" or "the eternal hemoroid"
you are a sad sad man whob. on this forum i have encountered all kinds of insane characters. from that certifiable lunatic big evil blaming jesus's crucifixion on 'the liberals' to the incoherent nonsensical jackie malfoy...none of them can hold a candle to what you have just done here.
you, whob, are the king of the dipshits
FIN(er)
"The concept of nature having a design to it is nothing new. Many liken it to the design theory that proceeded it entitled Creationism, which is exclusively based off of the Christian religion. Although many ID scientists are indeed Christian, the theory itself is not exclusively based on Christian doctrine nor is it based on the supernatural. Instead it is based on understanding the natural complexities that make up nature, and the impossibility of such perfect conditions to arise from random circumstance."
Unfortunately for you and Blue Nocturne both, "unlikeliness" does not equal "impossible", as long as a percentage exists for evolution to occur(and it does, contrary to whatever belief you may have) then Evolution is possible, and however "unlikely" it may seems is almost completely irrelevant.
I really dont have to respond to the rest of your nonsense, because if the basis of your belief is flat-out wrong, so will be everything else based on it.
Originally posted by PVS
we have learned nothing.
however what we already knew is that much more clear.1-you will stoop to any low to "win the thread", even if it means creating an opponent and striking down their weak and flawed argument 100,000,000 billion times while ignoring the hard hitting questions.
isnt that right retardo?retardo the bible thumper: "i just made poopy in my pants again!"
2-you have dialup internet access
3-you have quite a way of denying that EVERYONE reading here knows exactly what you did, and you look even more pathetic for trying to blame "the hackers".
4-you are but a creature of habit, and once you have exposed yourself once again as a pathetic antisocial reject who will do anything conceivable to troll a forum and try to look intelligent, you will ly low for a week or two and then come back pretending it never happened. perhaps you should change your handle to "atheletes foot" or "the eternal hemoroid"
you are a sad sad man whob. on this forum i have encountered all kinds of insane characters. from that certifiable lunatic big evil blaming jesus's crucifixion on 'the liberals' to the incoherent nonsensical jackie malfoy...none of them can hold a candle to what you have just done here.
you, whob, are the king of the dipshits
FIN(er)
👆
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Unfortunately for you and Blue Nocturne both, "unlikeliness" does not equal "impossible", as long as a percentage exists for evolution to occur(and it does, contrary to whatever belief you may have) then Evolution is possible, and however "unlikely" it may seems is almost completely irrelevant.I really dont have to respond to the rest of your nonsense, because if the basis of your belief is flat-out wrong, so will be everything else based on it. [/B]
Exactly right. Speciation begins at the genus level and not the primus or Familia one. There's the fruitfly experiment, and the Gallapagus fin
[i]Originally posted by whobdafool[i]
There are plenty of way's to apparently "match" others ip's. This is getting ridiculous.The guy clearly is a hacker, and socks over 30 pages using the screen names "blue nocturne", "lord xyz", "teh smart guy." I've also seen him sock in other threads using names like "Ushomefree", "Nuclear Winter"
Unfortunately no banning comes about from his behavior.But because I post a picture of some bud ugly chick that was linked to in a "public" profile I get banned? How ridiculous..
Anyway..getting back to the original topic of the thread..seeing as how going off-topic is also a bannable offense.. I'd really like for someone to adress this post, in their own words. Come on now Lana, certainly since you've demonstrated your astounding intellect in so many of our other debates, I expect you to be the first one to strike every aspect of this post down.
The floor is now yours sweety..
Yes I'm a hacker..🙄
I just joined this thread several days ago. I don't even no anything about computers. The bottom line is that prove of Macro evolution exists. The Gallupagus finches, the fruit fly experiment, Abiogenisis. You only make yourself look more pathetic each time you post.
Evolution exists in the natural world..spontaneous generation creates complex things in nature such as snowflakes and pinecombs..evolve with teh times man. Only a complete fool would think that something as complex as a DNA double helix was "designed", Just ask Francis Crick.
Fin
P.S. And when I say fin..I mean fin..
P.S.S **** you!!!