[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by Philosophighter

Yeah, thats one of the depressing aspects of how the majority of discussions in mayberry turn out. People start referencing this and that, posting vids, links to articles, etc.

The truth of the matter is that we can discuss any topic with just reason, openess to truth, and honesty. Fuck Dawkins, Sam Harris, or any ID proponent. Truth and honest conversation can reveal great truths. Its how our ancestors did it prior to the invention of wikipedia. The moment someone breaks out the links, the tide turns and its just about who can post what links, and discrediting their opinions until they view your shit.

Well, to be fair not only in MB, everywhere in fact.

People come with their prejudices, God, NoGod or whatever.

[ACR4V3N]

Im sure someones said it before me, but I dont want to digest 7 pages of this crap so I'll just say it again.

You cant have one without the other, therefore they came about at the same time, or are completely no existant. Simple as that.

[Toda Hiro-matsu]

Originally Posted by hole in the sky

technical jargon? doesn't seem too technical to me, it's pretty simple actually. you said mutation can't mean change. change is what mutation is. mutation is change. want the definition?

3. a change or alteration, as in form or nature.

in fact, here's the first line from the article YOU gave me

"mutations are changes..."

this has nothing to do with wiki owning the dictionary, they both agree that mutations are changes. you disagree. so far it's me, the dictionary and wikipedia against YOU. sorry.


this is seriously getting embarrassing for you. i would suggest bailing out of this thread in the interest of self-preservation. it would be the 'GOOD' thing to do.

LOL at your selective editing. I'll finish the sentence: "In biology, mutations are changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genetic material of an organism." And also from the "article" :"The majority of these mutations will have no effect...". You said a mutation meant a change in a species. Your example was a birthe defect. That is not the result of a mutation, generally (if at all). As far as leaving the thread, I think most of the current posters are in concurrence with me. Again: you fail. LOL

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by Toda Hiro-matsu

What genetic knowledge do you mean? How about some examples?

Natural law, you philistine.

BTW, I was just making fun of Jerome. It's easy and we can all do it.

Originally Posted by Philosophighter

Yeah, thats one of the depressing aspects of how the majority of discussions in mayberry turn out. People start referencing this and that, posting vids, links to articles, etc.

The truth of the matter is that we can discuss any topic with just reason, openess to truth, and honesty. Fuck Dawkins, Sam Harris, or any ID proponent. Truth and honest conversation can reveal great truths. Its how our ancestors did it prior to the invention of wikipedia. The moment someone breaks out the links, the tide turns and its just about who can post what links, and discrediting their opinions until they view your shit.

I believe as you do. Sharing information without prejudice is a holy and sacred thing.

To be honest, I'd love to believe in a Creator. I just don't. Despite the fact I don't, I still adhere to social mores thereby allowing me to masquerade as one of the Good guys.

But maybe that's just me lying to you and I'm one of teh BaDd.

U-DECIDE.

[Toda Hiro-matsu]

Originally Posted by Philosophighter

Yeah, thats one of the depressing aspects of how the majority of discussions in mayberry turn out. People start referencing this and that, posting vids, links to articles, etc.

The truth of the matter is that we can discuss any topic with just reason, openess to truth, and honesty. Fuck Dawkins, Sam Harris, or any ID proponent. Truth and honest conversation can reveal great truths. Its how our ancestors did it prior to the invention of wikipedia. The moment someone breaks out the links, the tide turns and its just about who can post what links, and discrediting their opinions until they view your shit.

That's a fair point. I wont post any links other than wiki's. That sound fair?

[markulous]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

We are all endowed with the natural law which gives us a basic degree of morality. Murder, rape, incest, stealing, lying etc etc.......

Morality covers many areas and i am not assuming that everyone naturally knows what is the right thing to do in each moral dilemma.

What makes a person an atheist, is that firstly they ignore their conscience. The degree of morality that each of us is given, therefore they cannot understand the concept of the one who put it there.

Look at the correlation between abortions, homosexuality, and marriage break ups as society becomes more and more secular. This is because the difference between what is clearly right and wrong is being skewed because people deny their moral conscience, and their creator.

What's wrong with divorce? Is that immoral? lol.

And again since you didn't respond to my last comment...A LOT of things have been done in the name of God(wars, murders, and persecution). I don't know how you can sit there and say people who are atheists don't have a conscience. Get a clue.

[Toda Hiro-matsu]

Originally Posted by Three Gun Fish

Natural law, you philistine.

BTW, I was just making fun of Jerome. It's easy and we can all do it.

I believe as you do. Sharing information without prejudice is a holy and sacred thing.

To be honest, I'd love to believe in a Creator. I just don't. Despite the fact I don't, I still adhere to social mores thereby allowing me to masquerade as one of the Good guys.

But maybe that's just me lying to you and I'm one of teh BaDd.

U-DECIDE.

Ouch. Sorry, I misunderstood.

[EricTheRed]

Good was first then Evil got jealous because Good was getting all the girls. Girls are actually the root of all evil ;)

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by ACR4V3N

Im sure someones said it before me, but I dont want to digest 7 pages of this crap so I'll just say it again.

You cant have one without the other, therefore they came about at the same time, or are completely no existant. Simple as that.

Good post.

[hole in the sky]

Originally Posted by Toda Hiro-matsu

LOL at your selective editing. I'll finish the sentence: "In biology, mutations are changes to the nucleotide sequence of the genetic material of an organism."

you have to be joking at this point. i didn't copy and paste all that out because it's redundant to the point i'm making which is;

mutation is change. changes to the nucelotide sequence of the gentic material is CHANGE. it doesn't matter how you slice it. or 'selectively edit' it in this case.

do you still not understand?

And also from the "article" :"The majority of these mutations will have no effect...". You said a mutation meant a change in a species. Your example was a birthe defect. That is not the result of a mutation, generally (if at all). As far as leaving the thread, I think most of the current posters are in concurrence with me. Again: you fail. LOL

i never said a mutation always meant a change in species. show me where i said that. you can't, because i never did.

you seem to be very confused right here; i never said a birth defect was the result of a mutation, i was saying the birth defect IS the mutation, mutation meaning...


...that's right, change. because the creature has a birth defect, the creature has a mutation. mutation meaning change.

mutation meaning change.

mutation meaning change.

i can't make this any clearer.