A debate about debates
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 1, 2006 22:13
VIEWED: 12983
PAGE 12 of 17
Wrong again Asswipe, they do not "Reproduce". They "use" a living host to do it for them. Where does that living host come from and how does it reproduce? Instead of talking in circles, answer the question ....How does a nonliving "thing" become living and have the ability to REALLY reproduce? Don't bring up Molecules, Ions, or Crystals..for they have more to do with electromagnetic charges than reproduction. (If you can "rub" two molecules together and get anything other than two molecules or a bigger molecule). I will personally lick your ass.
I do not believe in god, never claimed to. I do not buy into to this evolution shit when there is no truth to it...Well, it's true.......
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
kaneman wrote:
I do not believe in god, never claimed to. I do not buy into to this evolution shit when there is no truth to it
Then what, exactly, do you believe? Frankly, I'm confused by this post after all you've had to say in this thread.
It appears there are three options on the table.
1. Evolution, or at least some method of speciation by natural means, which is the defining natural scientific principle of the modern age and the one agreed to by PhD's in Biology.
2. Creationism
3. I.D.
You immediately ruled out evolution (1.)as a choice at the beginning of this thread. Then in your latest post ruled out 2. and 3. at the same time. What other choices am I missing? There is either a natural method or a religious one, and you've managed to void both at the same time.
What's left, magic? Are we the ethereal dreams of the forming universe? Or did you just smoke pot before you wrote that post, and didn't mean what you typed?
Give me your fourth option for life on this planet; I'm intrigued (as I suspect might be scientists and philosophers around the globe).
------------------------------------------
"A revolution without dancing is no revolution at all." - V
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kaneman- If I can reproduce a photograph or a document that opens the question of "real" reproduction as opposed to fake(?) reproduction. I think you're conflating two issues: "reproduction" and "life". At one time reproduction was considered to be a necessary but not sufficient attribute of "life". But as intermediate forms were found... organic bits that interact with living things and reproduce but don't do some of the other "lifelike" activities the whole definition of "life" was thrown into question.
To repeat my question so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle: What is real reproduction? How does it differ from unreal reproduction?
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"To repeat my question so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle: What is real reproduction? How does it differ from unreal reproduction?"
I, as is everyone else in this thread, am using "reproduction" synonymously with life/procreation not literally. That being said .......
I would say REAL reproduction is: two "parts" coming together and making a third "part", with the original "parts" staying intact to rinse, wash, and repeat
as could the third.....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
7%,
I have a hard time believing we can get something from nothing. I have as hard of a time believing "god" did it. After all what is god? What is it made of? So, I guess I don't have an answer to your question. Does that mean I have to accept either big bang/evolution or god? Can I hold out for something else?
"There is either a natural method or a religious one, and you've managed to void both at the same time."
I'm good like that.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:DNA can split off and create to seperate but Identical strands, it does it all the time.
Originally posted by kaneman:
I would say REAL reproduction is: two "parts" coming together and making a third "part", with the original "parts" staying intact to rinse, wash, and repeat
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen, Rue, Signy,
Thanks :)
It's so amazingly refreshing to see a thread where we so much agree on just about everything:
Such as,
Quote:
Kaneman: I'm the idiot.
Quote:
7% Then what, exactly, do you believe?
He believes that be an obnoxious troll and posting ignorant inflamatory obscenity will make him the center of attention. Apparently, he is correct, because we all think too negatively, and so opposing something is pretty easy for us.
For the record, robots can reproduce themselves. Are they therefore alive? or intelligent?
I have to disagree with something:
Quote:
7%: there appear to be three options on the table
The point of this thread is that there may be an unlimited number to "believe" but only one presently supported by the facts, and a couple of more religion-friendly ones which aren't denied by the facts that involve some designer.
It's entirely possible that evolution happens because our dna is being constantly tweaked by the flying spaghetti monster to create the perfect servant race. It's also possible that FSM is up there right now saying "they voted for george w bush? twice? bring my those restriction enzymes"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I would say REAL reproduction is: two "parts" coming together and making a third "part", with the original "parts" staying intact to rinse, wash, and repeat as could the third....."
Uhhmm ... now I know you're not a bio major. Bacteria, fungi - binary fission or budding (same basics, different relative sizes) is their main reproductive mode. 1 + 0 = 2
-------
DT - regarding robots - you don't have to be intelligent to reproduce, so if reproduction is the criteria for life then intelligence isn't relevant. (Even tho I know you're wondering if 'intelligence' means consciousness means alive.) As to robots reproducing, they don't reproduce as much as assemble.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CAUTION: Purely gratuitous grenade-lobbing follows! >>> If Kaneman is a bio major then I'm Bill Gates <<< END CAUTION
DT, I think there are debates.... and then there are debates. Religion doesn't belong in a scientific debate. So, does religion belong in ANY debate? On what grounds can one "debate" a religion? How do you "prove" a religious tennet anyway? You cna't even look for logical inconsistancies within a religion because it's all a matter of faith: Believe, even if it doesn't match what you see with your eyes or make sense.
But there are other kinds of debates besides scientific, for example debates about ethics or philosophy which one can tackle using logic.
And then there are political debates where mud is slung and facts don't count. Unfortunately, mud-wrestling is a lot more entertaining than scientific debate. A candidate who sticks to the high road and cites facts is a candidate who'll probably lose.
I guess my point is that there are different categories of "debate". Some people are trying to have a scientific debate while others are having a no-holds-barred mud wrestling match.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i agree, the bible for example makes no bones about being a scientific collaboration of evidence for the proof of God; i dont think that was its purpose, and in that way doesnt belong in a side-by-side comparison with the latest scientific theories
but to say that religion doesnt belong in any debate is just biased and unfair. you may not be a theist, but take it from me.. i constantly debate people on the truth to the messages of the bible. for instance, many people, including christians, believe that polytheism is mythical; whereas the bible itself clearly says that these 'gods' were the fallen angels, which DID exist. now their is clearly a discrepency here over what the bible actually says... is that not cause for debate? or is it that because every religion is believed to be a fairy tell, it doesnt matter what the specifics of the message are? as a theist, the bible has a clear message, which is why Jesus' himself says to be aware of false doctrines and their destruction. well, such debates have no place in the scientific secular world, because to you all, mans earliest origins have just been discarded as elaborate fantasy. well, i hope youll concede that in this way, only theists can debate theists, as it takes a comprehensive knowledge of the scriptures to form a thorough understanding of its message.
so lets be fair.. i acknowlege that we can(and often should) stay out of scienctific debates, and resist interjecting our sole belief in a creator lifeforce into your evolutionary models; but likewise, maybe science can stop marginilizing what equates to an entire field ancient theology, when it clearly lacks the forms of measurement to detect the spiritual world(ie the religious worlds claim to fame).
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME