Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@Quehoniaomath,

FM is using ID all the time with his GMO developments ... and this has nothing to do with school and teachers. It is typical pragmatics.
What do you personally think - is ID possible in the real world?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

FM is using ID all the time with his GMO developments ... and this has nothing to do with school and teachers. It is typical pragmatics.
What do you personally think - is ID possible in the real world?

yes, of course it is possible. However what he is saying DOES have a lot to do with schooling.
I don't know what his stand is on GMO, I don't read his postings because I really think he is too dumb to understand this sort of a thing, but I see GMO as highly highly highly dangerous , as it is ment to be!

2 Replies

@Herald,

where is ID shown to exist?? cmon , be a real student of truth. Don't cop out.

Quote:

FM is using ID all the time with his GMO developments

so does artificial selection negate the existence of naturl selection? HOW SO?
If artificial selection can change a phenotype and certainly a genotype, why is this IMPOSSIBLE in nature??

Youre just trying to command a high spot with no real substance . Youre as bd as Quahog and gunga.
If you cant understand the evidence , just ask, there are plenty of folks here who do understand.
If you just deny the evidence , well, that's having a closed mind.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

I know you "Peek" .If you don't undertand GMO (and what is NOT GMO-like pesticide resistant plnts) , just ask, Ive only been farming about 35 years.

DIPSHIT

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Your personal intelligence. Everything you make in your life - building a house, repairing the jeep, making blogs on the net, etc. is immediate result of your intelligence

so thi is the best you can come up with?

whatabout a "design implies a designer?" If youre gonna be Reverend Paley, why not first get the proper wording from his "Natural Theology"?

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

... but I see GMO as highly highly highly dangerous , as it is ment to be!

Why?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

If artificial selection can change a phenotype and certainly a genotype, why is this IMPOSSIBLE in nature??

Because artificial selection is based on intelligence (our own intelligence ... I hope you are not going to deny it).
Everything in the artificial selection is based on intelligence - the controlled environment in the lab, the pre-designed genotype, the selection of the seeds, the selection of the hybrids afterwords ... everything, without any exception.
FM, you are changing the assumptions of the experiment.
For the natural selection to be valid on the basis of the results observed with artificial selection you will need the source of the mapping - the prototype of our intelligence (God or other ILFs ... or string theory (the Mind of God as the physicists call it) ... or whatever), but you will need prototype ... or in the alternative case you have to prove that the intelligence can emerge out of nothing and by some accident. Where is the proof of this?
The evidence you are trying to present is called inference by analogy. You make the artificial selection tests and on the grounds of them & their results you infer what the natural selection might be happening in the same way ... but you are missing the point - the mapping of our intelligence into the controlled environment of the artificial selection from its 'primary image' with the natural selection.
You have invalid mapping in order to make the said inference by analogy. Hence your inference is invalid, for it fails the validation tests.
From where automatically follows that you cannot use artificial selection as an evidence for and as an example of natural selection.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

... but I see GMO as highly highly highly dangerous , as it is ment to be!

Simple,. that is the way it is purposely designed.
One of its affect is unfertility and there is so much more.
Another affect is cancer of course.
It really is very very dangerous.
But this could become a whole new thread.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Because artificial selection is based on intelligence (our own intelligence ... I hope you are not going to deny it).
Everything in the artificial selection is based on intelligence

so Is building a"flying machine" but birds have been flying since the Cretaceous, using "rust" as a protective surface is done by metallurgy, but its been a copy of what minerals do since the earth began.

Quote:

From where automatically follows that you cannot use artificial selection as an evidence for and as an example of natural selection.

I suppose then, from what you've just tried to cobble together as your argument, you've NOT EVER read Darwin's
"THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES ,for it is with his own experiments of artificial selection in barnacles and pigeons that he derived the 'mechanism" of natural selection. (that , and the realization that animals on islands do transmutate (or evolve) from their original population on the mainlands , AND, also by looking at the fossil record of species in temporal separation in their immediate sequential sedimentary layers.

This was all he did, Its only been the last 150 years or so that scientists have actually been "piling on" evidence after evidence.

Youre just dead wrong AND ignorant of the facts.
SO once again you demonstrate that your "beliefs" are based upon lack of any relevant knowledge and are merely close-minded religious dogma. In that youre just like Quahog.

0 Replies

@Quehoniaomath,

Quote:

... but I see GMO as highly highly highly dangerous , as it is ment to be!

Many people feel the same but their concerns are derived from a much higher level of understanding than mere guesses.

resistance of insects to Bt , or "cquired" resistance of weeds to Roundup and other glyphosates and glyphosinates, is an example of evolution in which artificial selection is thwarted.
Everything you hold up as an example for your "be;iefs" is easily evidenced to be an example for evolution.

"Theres no evidence" is the typical Creationist view do the Creationists can tick their fingers in their ears and yell "nyah nyah nyah, I CANT HEAAR YOU"

Even the die hards (sorta like Romeo), are laning on "Theistic evolution" because the amount of supportive evidence for evolution is undeniable . Youd have to be a complete idiot to deny.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Everything you hold up as an example for your "be;iefs" is easily evidenced to be an example for evolution.

Obviously. The beliefs, the ones that matter, (see my Butler quote), are based on evolutionary principles in relation to areas of cultural development which you scrupulously avoid going anywhere near.

You think that because Jesus couldn't have raised Lazarus from the dead the sexual peccadilloes of the liberal elite are free to wreak their havoc and that your chattery smattery battery of scientific terminology is sufficient to convince all but the intelligent that such havoc is right and proper which it is from an evolutionary point of view.

And I must admit that you are winning.

1 Reply

@Quehoniaomath,

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Simple,. that is the way it is purposely designed.

The way of its design before the terminator by itself is not a threat.
The threat is that we don't know what the GMO developers are doing with the foodsstuffs and they also don't know what they are doing - this is the worst case scenario.
Becides, in order to release a medication for example on the market one needs 3-5 years as a minimum to pass through the permissions and all the other stages, and the developers of GMO are releasing the seeds straight from the lab table, without any clinical tests. How does that happen?

Quehoniaomath wrote:

One of its affect is unfertility and there is so much more.

The infertility is with the seeds, not with the consumers. In the consumers the GMO may sent the body metabolism in the Dimension X.

Quehoniaomath wrote:

Another affect is cancer of course.

This is not clinically proven, but in any case consuming GMOs is a story of the unexpected.

Quehoniaomath wrote:

It really is very very dangerous.
But this could become a whole new thread.

O.K., why don't you make it.

2 Replies

@spendius,

yet you agree in principle. Hmmm.

I don't believe in the Lazarus crap because theres no verifiable evidence but for some 2 sequential tales in a book rife with other tales. I cant repeat or find evidence of Lazarus after his "NDE" or of the very existence of a "Christ".
yet I can clearly follow the evolution of his legend in scripture. That is ipsedixitism at its best.

1 Reply

@Herald,

can you even name ANY seeds that contain a terminator? Or are you just using the term because I introduced you to it a few pages back?

Trying to sound "in the loop" with GMO so you can impress the moron Quahog

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Nobody wallows in the ipse dixit method quite as much as you do fm.

Do you want to ignore the Butler quote so that you can concentrate all your efforts on minor details which are of no importance?

Why do you think Darwin was so nervous about publishing his masterpiece?

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

Nobody wallows in the ipse dixit method quite as much as you do fm.

why don't you find a hedgehog and fellate it. I don't do ipse dixit. I provide literature citations.

"Don't quote anyone else, tell me what you feel"
-Mark Twain

1 Reply

@Herald,

Quote:

O.K., why don't you make it.

why should I? people don'want to know.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I provide literature citations.

You are aware, aren't you ... that providing frivolous & stochastic ad hoc citations from the literature without having the backend system - the justifications & the knowledge underlying the claims there ... and taken out of the context - is not entirely tenable ... and innocent exercise?

1 Reply

Could the OP define "Casino Universe" all I could think of is the "intermittent reinforcement."

1 Reply

@Herald,

Heres a question for you re: your last statement;

Quote:

You are aware, aren't you ... that providing frivolous & stochastic ad hoc citations from the literature without having the backend system - the justifications & the knowledge underlying the claims there ...

So what have you provided besides poorly worded sentences loaded with preconceived religious gobbledeegook?

Why don't you post some of your "IT" literature? at least thatd be something. I have 3 IT guys working in my modeling group (except that they each have pHD's in a science and their IT ness is just a "tool" not a career path.
FOR YOUR INFORMATION BUNKY
Everything Ive posted was a direct quote in specific reference to a(usually silly) question that you had first posted.
(For example, when I responded to a genetic question with the number of nucleotides , amino acids nd coded proteins in DNA? SO whatd you do then? You asked me to prove it "mathematically") DO you even know how stupid that sounded??

0 Replies

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know