Darwin vs DNA

[LOki]

My very first post on this thread, I stated that I was a fan of graduated equilibrium (now more commonly known as punctuated equilibrium). Variations in genetic code is essential to graduated equilibrium, as well as environmental variables continually changing. Im guessing you do not know what graduated/punctuated equilibrium is (which you would not if you have taken nothing higher than a BIO 101 course), or the slight differences between that and the standard evolution model.

Another bad guess on your part.

Except for the part where you insist that "genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations"--that essential and identifying characteristic of ID that you are in complete agreement with--what you're saying is the ... ahem ... "complete opposite."

You are lolfritters.

You keep saying it was all "designed" and "made" for "purposes", and you'll be failing to conceal that you're advocating ID, and I will keep pointing it out ... and I'll be right; every time.

I already told you I accept your poker metaphor (for as far as it can go) and it does not invalidate the obvious (graduated/punctuated equilibrium or otherwise)--that offspring are of the same species as their parents, and that fact is an essential point in the validity of evolutionary theory.

Despite the obvious opportunity you had to prove this accusation of yours by linking to the post, you didn't. Why is that Cupcake?

Now your argument has changed to trying to say that I am an advocate for ID, which is just as stupid, since from the beginning I have been arguing against it.

There's been no change in my argument. From the minute you posted "...genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations..." I have pointed out your Intelligent Design advocacy.

Isn't that right, Cupcake?

Yea like I said before, heart is designed to pump blood, genetics is designed to make variations. Thats a duh statement.

"Designed" requires a designer. "Design" requires intelligence.

"Duh." You're advocating Intelligent Design.

Simple bio, no way shape or form did I say, or hinted GOD designed a human heart, or human genetics, and put it on the earth no evolution.

Go on, deny that you in "no way shape or form ... say, or hinted ..." a DESIGNER "... designed a human heart, or human genetics, and put it on the earth no evolution."

Go on. DENY IT! You lying sack of shit.

And If you think I believe that than you do not understand g/p equilibrium.

I understand it well enough, that a design nor a designer, need be involved.

You wanna argue definitions of words, or implications of words, your not gonna win the argument.

I've already won there, Pumpkin.

I have told you my position many times, If I was arguing for ID, do you think I would change my position so quickly.

You've also demonstrated yourself to be a liar of the first order. Who give a fuck what you've told me--I'm pointing out what you say.

And If I dont multi quote you or whatever, its b/c I dont feel like it. And I dont have too, read your old post, simple as that.

You don't have to multi-quote me you prevaricating faggot--just link to the post. Provide the exact quote. You can do that, can't you?

Unless of course, no such post exists. Ain't that right, Cupcake?

 

[sakinago]

Another bad guess on your part.

Except for the part where you insist that "genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations"--that essential and identifying characteristic of ID that you are in complete agreement with--what you're saying is the ... ahem ... "complete opposite."

You are lolfritters.

You keep saying it was all "designed" and "made" for "purposes", and you'll be failing to conceal that you're advocating ID, and I will keep pointing it out ... and I'll be right; every time.

I already told you I accept your poker metaphor (for as far as it can go) and it does not invalidate the obvious (graduated/punctuated equilibrium or otherwise)--that offspring are of the same species as their parents, and that fact is an essential point in the validity of evolutionary theory.

Despite the obvious opportunity you had to prove this accusation of yours by linking to the post, you didn't. Why is that Cupcake?

There's been no change in my argument. From the minute you posted "...genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations..." I have pointed out your Intelligent Design advocacy.

Isn't that right, Cupcake?

Yea like I said before, heart is designed to pump blood, genetics is designed to make variations. Thats a duh statement.

"Designed" requires a designer. "Design" requires intelligence.

"Duh." You're advocating Intelligent Design.


Go on, deny that you in "no way shape or form ... say, or hinted ..." a DESIGNER "... designed a human heart, or human genetics, and put it on the earth no evolution."

Go on. DENY IT! You lying sack of shit.

I understand it well enough, that a design nor a designer, need be involved.

I've already won there, Pumpkin.

I have told you my position many times, If I was arguing for ID, do you think I would change my position so quickly.

You've also demonstrated yourself to be a liar of the first order. Who give a fuck what you've told me--I'm pointing out what you say.

And If I dont multi quote you or whatever, its b/c I dont feel like it. And I dont have too, read your old post, simple as that.

You don't have to multi-quote me you prevaricating faggot--just link to the post. Provide the exact quote. You can do that, can't you?

Unless of course, no such post exists. Ain't that right, Cupcake?

Again, why would I argue against ID (my first post) and then change my position. Most ppl who support ID stick to their guns vehemently. Please answer this question, If I support ID then why have I been arguing against it, or why would I change my position (which I never once have) which is what your saying. Please give me a logical answer to that question. Its pretty clear that your accusation that I support ID makes no sense, whatsoever.

Another question I want you to answer, what does a heart do? Ill answer that... it pumps blood. Why doesn't the brain pump blood... because thats not what its made for. Genetics is made to encourage variations in offspring, thats its function. The last statement is what you have been arguing against. That statement is also what breaks down the argument for ID, and it does a pretty good job (much better than the arguments you have made).

Since I hit the reply button without quoting, I will just write myself what you said before. You asked me to show proof that genetics is designed to produced variations (this is why I used my poker metaphore, to show you proof). If you want I will go back and quote this for you, I really dont think I have to.

Your most recent post you seem to be changing your position, or making stupid arguments over the definitions of words, despite me making it perfectly clear over and over again about what I meant by these words.

Bottom line is, your an idiot, and should not be arguing for evolution. Lets see you try to answer the questions I brought up, and somehow try to prove that I support ID, or the function of genetics does not ensure variations in offspring.

 

[peach174]

DNA proved that we all come from one female, like the bible says.
I believe the Bible and DNA not evolutionists.

 

[sakinago]

DNA proved that we all come from one female, like the bible says.
I believe the Bible and DNA not evolutionists.

Again... genetics ensures variations in offspring so that when environmental variables change, the genetic code will go on. If thats what genetics does, then you have to say that God made evolution.

 

[LOki]

Yea like I said before, heart is designed to pump blood, genetics is designed to make variations. Thats a duh statement.

"Designed" requires a designer. "Design" requires intelligence.

"Duh." You're advocating Intelligent Design.


Go on, deny that you in "no way shape or form ... say, or hinted ..." a DESIGNER "... designed a human heart, or human genetics, and put it on the earth no evolution."

Go on. DENY IT! You lying sack of shit.

I understand it well enough, that a design nor a designer, need be involved.

I've already won there, Pumpkin.

You've also demonstrated yourself to be a liar of the first order. Who give a fuck what you've told me--I'm pointing out what you say.

And If I dont multi quote you or whatever, its b/c I dont feel like it. And I dont have too, read your old post, simple as that.

You don't have to multi-quote me you prevaricating faggot--just link to the post. Provide the exact quote. You can do that, can't you?

Unless of course, no such post exists. Ain't that right, Cupcake?

Again, why would I argue against ID (my first post) and then change my position.

You didn't change your position ... you'll just say you did.

Most ppl who support ID stick to their guns vehemently.

As you have stuck to your ID guns ... vehemently, even. What's your point?

Please answer this question, If I support ID then why have I been arguing against it, ...

You haven't been arguing against it. You're such an idiot, that you just can't grasp that I can repeatedly link to your own words to prove my point.

But all of the genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations. This is what we have learned from genetics, whether its microbes or blue whales.

... or why would I change my position (which I never once have) which is what your saying.

No. I am agreeing with you that you have not changed your ID advancing position.

Please give me a logical answer to that question. Its pretty clear that your accusation that I support ID makes no sense, whatsoever.

Considering the OVERWHELMING evidence that you have provided, my accusation is perfectly sensible. Your denial is not.

Another question I want you to answer, what does a heart do? Ill answer that... it pumps blood. Why doesn't the brain pump blood... because thats not what its made for. Genetics is made to encourage variations in offspring, thats its function. The last statement is what you have been arguing against.

I'm not arguing against what those things do ... I'm arguing against your Intelligent-Design point that they were made to do it. You prevaricating chimp-douche.

That statement is also what breaks down the argument for ID, and it does a pretty good job (much better than the arguments you have made).

Again, you are an idiot.

Since I hit the reply button without quoting, I will just write myself what you said before. You asked me to show proof that genetics is designed to produced variations (this is why I used my poker metaphore, to show you proof). If you want I will go back and quote this for you, I really dont think I have to.

That's right. You said, "...genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

And when asked to prove this "design," you take the typical creationist tactic of avoiding the question by discussing a poker metaphor that speaks nothing to design. It is entirely consistent with ID "theory" and you offered nothing to refute your obvious ID advancing assertions.

Your most recent post you seem to be changing your position, or making stupid arguments over the definitions of words, despite me making it perfectly clear over and over again about what I meant by these words.

This is all lies.

Really. All lies. From my first response to you until now, my position has not changed. The evidence is incontrovertible.

Bottom line is, your an idiot, and should not be arguing for evolution.

No. The bottom line is that you are a proven liar and creationist, hiding behind the the superficially scientific assertion of intelligent-design.

Lets see you try to answer the questions I brought up, and somehow try to prove that I support ID, ...

YOU proved it.

I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life.

Didn't you?

...or the function of genetics does not ensure variations in offspring.

I don't disagree that one way that genetics functions ensures variations in offspring, you prevaricating faggot ... I disagree with your clear and unambiguous assertion that it was designed so ... you know, by your "... Diety [who] created the universe and consequently life."

 

[sakinago]

"Designed" requires a designer. "Design" requires intelligence.

"Duh." You're advocating Intelligent Design.


Go on, deny that you in "no way shape or form ... say, or hinted ..." a DESIGNER "... designed a human heart, or human genetics, and put it on the earth no evolution."

Go on. DENY IT! You lying sack of shit.

I understand it well enough, that a design nor a designer, need be involved.

I've already won there, Pumpkin.

You've also demonstrated yourself to be a liar of the first order. Who give a fuck what you've told me--I'm pointing out what you say.

You don't have to multi-quote me you prevaricating faggot--just link to the post. Provide the exact quote. You can do that, can't you?

Unless of course, no such post exists. Ain't that right, Cupcake?

Again, why would I argue against ID (my first post) and then change my position.

You didn't change your position ... you just say you did.

As you have stuck to your ID guns ... vehemently, even. What's your point?

You haven't been arguing against it. You're such an idiot, that you just can't grasp that I can repeatedly link to your own words to prove my point.

​

No. I am agreeing with you that you have not changed your ID advancing position.

Considering the OVERWHELMING evidence that you have provided, my accusation is perfectly sensible. Your denial is not.

I'm not arguing against what those things do ... I'm arguing against your Intelligent-Design point that they were made to do it. You prevaricating chimp-douche.

Again, you are an idiot.

That's right. You said, "...genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

And when asked to prove this "design," you take the typical creationist tactic of avoiding the question by discussing a poker metaphor that speaks nothing to design. It is entirely consistent with ID "theory" and you offered nothing to refute your obvious ID advancing assertions.

This is all lies.

Really. All lies. From my first response to you until now, my position has not changed. The evidence in incontrovertible.

No. The bottom line is that you are a proven liar and creationist, hiding behind the the superficially scientific assertion of intelligent-design.

YOU proved it.

I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life.

Didn't you?

...or the function of genetics does not ensure variations in offspring.

I don't disagree that one way that genetics functions ensures variations in offspring, you prevaricating faggot ... I disagree with your clear and unambiguous assertion that it was designed so ... you know, by your "... Diety [who] created the universe and consequently life."

You know nothing of what I believe about a diety, other than that I believe in one. You are making the incorrect assumption (generalzation, or stereotype) that I am one of those christian, muslim, or jews that does not believe in evolution. If you want to get into a conversation whether a diety exist... thats a totally different conversation mostly getting involved with pre-universe theorem (I am very confident I could school you in that too). Either way It is not a conversation about evolution.

Again you have failed to answer my question on why I would argue against ID this whole time, but I am somehow be secretly for it. Your argument has now simply turned into me being an idiot, without backing it up, and trying to use the word design and say that I can only be saying that God specifically designed it that way (which is not the case and a very weak argument, every one of my post will prove that). You have also resorted to calling me a liar, which is also weak since my stance has been very consistent, and very much against ID.

So again you either did not understand the points I was making about genetics (now you all of a sudden agree with them), which is why you were arguing against me. Cause really the only feeble argument you are trying to make (and you should quit now) is that I somehow secretly believe in ID.

 

[LOki]

Again, why would I argue against ID (my first post) and then change my position.

You didn't change your position ... you just say you did.

As you have stuck to your ID guns ... vehemently, even. What's your point?

You haven't been arguing against it. You're such an idiot, that you just can't grasp that I can repeatedly link to your own words to prove my point.

​

No. I am agreeing with you that you have not changed your ID advancing position.

Considering the OVERWHELMING evidence that you have provided, my accusation is perfectly sensible. Your denial is not.

I'm not arguing against what those things do ... I'm arguing against your Intelligent-Design point that they were made to do it. You prevaricating chimp-douche.

Again, you are an idiot.

That's right. You said, "...genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

And when asked to prove this "design," you take the typical creationist tactic of avoiding the question by discussing a poker metaphor that speaks nothing to design. It is entirely consistent with ID "theory" and you offered nothing to refute your obvious ID advancing assertions.

This is all lies.

Really. All lies. From my first response to you until now, my position has not changed. The evidence in incontrovertible.

No. The bottom line is that you are a proven liar and creationist, hiding behind the the superficially scientific assertion of intelligent-design.

YOU proved it.

​

Didn't you?

...or the function of genetics does not ensure variations in offspring.

I don't disagree that one way that genetics functions ensures variations in offspring, you prevaricating faggot ... I disagree with your clear and unambiguous assertion that it was designed so ... you know, by your "... Diety [who] created the universe and consequently life."

You know nothing of what I believe about a diety, other than that I believe in one.

And that you believe your "... Diety created the universe and consequently life."

Ain't that right, Pumpkin?

You are making the incorrect assumption (generalzation, or stereotype) that I am one of those christian, muslim, or jews that does not believe in evolution.

I made no assumption regarding the identity you assign to your "... Diety [who] created the universe and consequently life."

If you want to get into a conversation whether a diety exist... thats a totally different conversation mostly getting involved with pre-universe theorem (I am very confident I could school you in that too).

I've punked better liars than you on that topic. Game-on any time you like, Cupcake.

Either way It is not a conversation about evolution.

At least we can agree on that.

Again you have failed to answer my question on why I would argue against ID this whole time, ...

I did answer you ... the answer was, "You haven't been arguing against it. You're such an idiot, that you just can't grasp that I can repeatedly link to your own words to prove my point."

You got that now? You haven't been arguing against it.

... but I am somehow be secretly for it.

It's not a fucking secret, you retard. YOU SAY IT PLAINLY!

Your argument has now simply turned into me being an idiot, without backing it up, and trying to use the word design and say that I can only be saying that God specifically designed it that way (which is not the case and a very weak argument, every one of my post will prove that).

sakinago, YOU said it. YOU said:

I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life.

and you said:

... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations.

NONE of your posts refute it.

You have also resorted to calling me a liar, which is also weak since my stance has been very consistent, and very much against ID.

You are a liar. It's a proven fact.

So again you either did not understand the points I was making about genetics (now you all of a sudden agree with them), which is why you were arguing against me.

There's no "all of a sudden," you lying faggot. Aside from being "designed," at what point did I disagree with the points you made about genetics? Quote me directly and link -- or stop complaining that I point out you're a remorseless liar.

Cause really the only feeble argument you are trying to make (and you should quit now) is that I somehow secretly believe in ID.

It's not a fucking secret, you lying retard. YOU SAY IT PLAINLY!

 

[sakinago]

You didn't change your position ... you just say you did.

As you have stuck to your ID guns ... vehemently, even. What's your point?

You haven't been arguing against it. You're such an idiot, that you just can't grasp that I can repeatedly link to your own words to prove my point.

​

No. I am agreeing with you that you have not changed your ID advancing position.

Considering the OVERWHELMING evidence that you have provided, my accusation is perfectly sensible. Your denial is not.

I'm not arguing against what those things do ... I'm arguing against your Intelligent-Design point that they were made to do it. You prevaricating chimp-douche.

Again, you are an idiot.

That's right. You said, "...genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations."

And when asked to prove this "design," you take the typical creationist tactic of avoiding the question by discussing a poker metaphor that speaks nothing to design. It is entirely consistent with ID "theory" and you offered nothing to refute your obvious ID advancing assertions.

This is all lies.

Really. All lies. From my first response to you until now, my position has not changed. The evidence in incontrovertible.

No. The bottom line is that you are a proven liar and creationist, hiding behind the the superficially scientific assertion of intelligent-design.

YOU proved it.

​

Didn't you?

I don't disagree that one way that genetics functions ensures variations in offspring, you prevaricating faggot ... I disagree with your clear and unambiguous assertion that it was designed so ... you know, by your "... Diety [who] created the universe and consequently life."

You know nothing of what I believe about a diety, other than that I believe in one.

And that you believe your "... Diety created the universe and consequently life."

Ain't that right, Pumpkin?

I made no assumption regarding the identity you assign to your "... Diety [who] created the universe and consequently life."

I've punked better liars than you on that topic. Game-on any time you like, Cupcake.

At least we can agree on that.

I did answer you ... the answer was, "You haven't been arguing against it. You're such an idiot, that you just can't grasp that I can repeatedly link to your own words to prove my point."

You got that now? You haven't been arguing against it.

It's not a fucking secret, you retard. YOU SAY IT PLAINLY!

sakinago, YOU said it. YOU said:

​

and you said:

​

NONE of your posts refute it.

You are a liar. It's a proven fact.

So again you either did not understand the points I was making about genetics (now you all of a sudden agree with them), which is why you were arguing against me.

There's no "all of a sudden," you lying faggot. Aside from being "designed," at what point did I disagree with the points you made about genetics? Quote me directly and link -- or stop complaining that I point out you're a remorseless liar.

Cause really the only feeble argument you are trying to make (and you should quit now) is that I somehow secretly believe in ID.

It's not a fucking secret, you lying retard. YOU SAY IT PLAINLY!

Do you understand the word consequently? If God made the universe, the universe made life, consequently in a way made life. Its pretty easy to see what was meant by the word consequently. Again you do not know what I believe about God other than existence. What you also know is that I believe in punctuated equilibrium, which is in direct opposition of ID.

And yet again, for a third time you did not explain if I am for ID then why am I arguing against it. All you have done is accused me of lying. I have said from the beginning that I believe in punctuated equilibrium. And you cannot deny that my argument against ID was way better then any of yours, since you have just been running in circles with the ID folks.

If you want to get into pre-universe conversation be my guest. If you want to get into a convo about a diety, be my guess (that would involve theology which I definitly do not have a degree in) but I am still pretty confident I know more than you about since you dont understand the ID arguments anyway, since you seem to think that I believe it.

Answer my questions, and stop saying the same stupid shit. Oh and stop using cupcake as a derogatory term, you've overused waaaay tooo much.

 

[LOki]

You know nothing of what I believe about a diety, other than that I believe in one.

And that you believe your "... Diety created the universe and consequently life."

Ain't that right, Pumpkin?

I made no assumption regarding the identity you assign to your "... Diety [who] created the universe and consequently life."

I've punked better liars than you on that topic. Game-on any time you like, Cupcake.

At least we can agree on that.

I did answer you ... the answer was, "You haven't been arguing against it. You're such an idiot, that you just can't grasp that I can repeatedly link to your own words to prove my point."

You got that now? You haven't been arguing against it.

It's not a fucking secret, you retard. YOU SAY IT PLAINLY!

sakinago, YOU said it. YOU said:

​

and you said:

​

NONE of your posts refute it.

You are a liar. It's a proven fact.

There's no "all of a sudden," you lying faggot. Aside from being "designed," at what point did I disagree with the points you made about genetics? Quote me directly and link -- or stop complaining that I point out you're a remorseless liar.

Cause really the only feeble argument you are trying to make (and you should quit now) is that I somehow secretly believe in ID.

It's not a fucking secret, you lying retard. YOU SAY IT PLAINLY!

Do you understand the word consequently?

I sure do.

If God made the universe, the universe made life, consequently in a way made life. Its pretty easy to see what was meant by the word consequently.

In light of your belief that "... ...genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations," it's pretty plain where the end game of "consequently" winds up.

Again you do not know what I believe about God other than existence.

I know what he consequence of your unambiguous belief in a creator of life and a designer of genetics means ... Intelligent Design.

What you also know is that I believe in punctuated equilibrium, which is in direct opposition of ID.

LOLsome. Not if it was ...ahem... "designed" that way.

And yet again, for a third time you did not explain if I am for ID then why am I arguing against it.

FOR THE LAST TIME ... YOU ARE NOT ARGUING AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

All you have done is accused me of lying.

No. I have proven it at each instance.

If you think I can't, I dare you to ask me to link to it.

I dare you.

I have said from the beginning that I believe in punctuated equilibrium.

You have also said you believe in a creator of life, and you have also said you believe life was designed.

And you cannot deny that my argument against ID was way better then any of yours, since you have just been running in circles with the ID folks.

You made no argument against intelligent design, and my arguments against intelligent design have not been refuted (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) by anyone.

If you want to get into pre-universe conversation be my guest. If you want to get into a convo about a diety, be my guess (that would involve theology which I definitly do not have a degree in) but I am still pretty confident I know more than you about since you dont understand the ID arguments anyway, since you seem to think that I believe it.

Your ID credentials are impeccable. Your denial of this fact of reality is clownshoes.

Answer my questions, and stop saying the same stupid shit. Oh and stop using cupcake as a derogatory term, you've overused waaaay tooo much.

I just don't accept the obviously faulty premise of your question, Cupcake. Never-the-less, I did answer your question.

 

[sakinago]

And that you believe your "... Diety created the universe and consequently life."

Ain't that right, Pumpkin?

I made no assumption regarding the identity you assign to your "... Diety [who] created the universe and consequently life."

I've punked better liars than you on that topic. Game-on any time you like, Cupcake.

At least we can agree on that.

I did answer you ... the answer was, "You haven't been arguing against it. You're such an idiot, that you just can't grasp that I can repeatedly link to your own words to prove my point."

You got that now? You haven't been arguing against it.

It's not a fucking secret, you retard. YOU SAY IT PLAINLY!

sakinago, YOU said it. YOU said:

​

and you said:

​

NONE of your posts refute it.

You are a liar. It's a proven fact.

There's no "all of a sudden," you lying faggot. Aside from being "designed," at what point did I disagree with the points you made about genetics? Quote me directly and link -- or stop complaining that I point out you're a remorseless liar.

It's not a fucking secret, you lying retard. YOU SAY IT PLAINLY!

Do you understand the word consequently?

I sure do.

In light of your belief that "... ...genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations," it's pretty plain where the end game of "consequently" winds up.

I know what he consequence of your unambiguous belief in a creator of life and a designer of genetics means ... Intelligent Design.

LOLsome. Not if it was ...ahem... "designed" that way.

FOR THE LAST TIME ... YOU ARE NOT ARGUING AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

No. I have proven it at each instance.

If you think I can't, I dare you to ask me to link to it.

I dare you.

You have also said you believe in a creator of life, and you have also said you believe life was designed.

You made no argument against intelligent design, and my arguments against intelligent design have not been refuted (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) by anyone.

If you want to get into pre-universe conversation be my guest. If you want to get into a convo about a diety, be my guess (that would involve theology which I definitly do not have a degree in) but I am still pretty confident I know more than you about since you dont understand the ID arguments anyway, since you seem to think that I believe it.

Your ID credentials are impeccable. Your denial of this fact of reality is clownshoes.

Answer my questions, and stop saying the same stupid shit. Oh and stop using cupcake as a derogatory term, you've overused waaaay tooo much.

I just don't accept the obviously faulty premise of your question, Cupcake. Never-the-less, I did answer your question.

You really have no clue what intelligent design is. It is essentially the belief that life was created to fit the environment/ecosystem, not the other way around which is the environment/ecosystem shapes what life or genetic information goes on. Now considering what I have said 50 fucking times now, which does it sound like I support. Your a dumbass, and your rhetoric terrible (e.g. arguing over choice/definition of words, making assumptions with little information, and having no clue what your talking about), once you start using that type of rhetoric, you have already lost.

You obviously have no clue what ID is, you had no clue how cancer works, you argued against genetics ensuring variations (then changed your argument), and you clearly had no clue what punctuated equilibrium is (im sure you probably wikipediaded it by now). Your biggest problem with me seems to be the fact that I believe in a diety, and like I said before if you want to get into a pre-universe debate, Im pretty sure Ill give you a spanking in that too. Or if you want to go back to what ID is, or how cancer works we can do that too.

And I am still pretty sure you have some sort of english, or language background; your profile pic is a reference to le' morte d'arthur, and only english majors try to use bigger words or literary references like you to make them seem smarter.

 

[sakinago]

And that you believe your "... Diety created the universe and consequently life."

Ain't that right, Pumpkin?

I made no assumption regarding the identity you assign to your "... Diety [who] created the universe and consequently life."

I've punked better liars than you on that topic. Game-on any time you like, Cupcake.

At least we can agree on that.

I did answer you ... the answer was, "You haven't been arguing against it. You're such an idiot, that you just can't grasp that I can repeatedly link to your own words to prove my point."

You got that now? You haven't been arguing against it.

It's not a fucking secret, you retard. YOU SAY IT PLAINLY!

sakinago, YOU said it. YOU said:

​

and you said:

​

NONE of your posts refute it.

You are a liar. It's a proven fact.

There's no "all of a sudden," you lying faggot. Aside from being "designed," at what point did I disagree with the points you made about genetics? Quote me directly and link -- or stop complaining that I point out you're a remorseless liar.

It's not a fucking secret, you lying retard. YOU SAY IT PLAINLY!

Do you understand the word consequently?

I sure do.

In light of your belief that "... ...genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations," it's pretty plain where the end game of "consequently" winds up.

I know what he consequence of your unambiguous belief in a creator of life and a designer of genetics means ... Intelligent Design.

LOLsome. Not if it was ...ahem... "designed" that way.

FOR THE LAST TIME ... YOU ARE NOT ARGUING AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

No. I have proven it at each instance.

If you think I can't, I dare you to ask me to link to it.

I dare you.

You have also said you believe in a creator of life, and you have also said you believe life was designed.

You made no argument against intelligent design, and my arguments against intelligent design have not been refuted (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) by anyone.

If you want to get into pre-universe conversation be my guest. If you want to get into a convo about a diety, be my guess (that would involve theology which I definitly do not have a degree in) but I am still pretty confident I know more than you about since you dont understand the ID arguments anyway, since you seem to think that I believe it.

Your ID credentials are impeccable. Your denial of this fact of reality is clownshoes.

Answer my questions, and stop saying the same stupid shit. Oh and stop using cupcake as a derogatory term, you've overused waaaay tooo much.

I just don't accept the obviously faulty premise of your question, Cupcake. Never-the-less, I did answer your question.

That being said, try to prove I support intelligent design. The fact that I used the word design (which is your only argument) is your only "proof", even though I have used many different words pretty much saying the same thing, that I am a p/g equilibrium follower which is essentially evolution, and the opposite of ID.

And again this conversation comes down to whether or not you think genetics functions to make variations, which is undeniable what I have been saying this whole fucking time.

 

[LOki]

Do you understand the word consequently?

I sure do.

In light of your belief that "... ...genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations," it's pretty plain where the end game of "consequently" winds up.

I know what he consequence of your unambiguous belief in a creator of life and a designer of genetics means ... Intelligent Design.

LOLsome. Not if it was ...ahem... "designed" that way.

FOR THE LAST TIME ... YOU ARE NOT ARGUING AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

No. I have proven it at each instance.

If you think I can't, I dare you to ask me to link to it.

I dare you.

You have also said you believe in a creator of life, and you have also said you believe life was designed.

You made no argument against intelligent design, and my arguments against intelligent design have not been refuted (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) by anyone.

Your ID credentials are impeccable. Your denial of this fact of reality is clownshoes.

Answer my questions, and stop saying the same stupid shit. Oh and stop using cupcake as a derogatory term, you've overused waaaay tooo much.

I just don't accept the obviously faulty premise of your question, Cupcake. Never-the-less, I did answer your question.

That being said, try to prove I support intelligent design. The fact that I used the word design (which is your only argument) is your only "proof", even though I have used many different words pretty much saying the same thing, ...

"PROOF":

I believe in a Diety, and that the Diety created the universe and consequently life.

Theres no reason why the laws of physics are the way they are, other than we either got lucky, or it was designed that way.

... genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations.

What I said is that our genetics are designed for diversity, and mutation. But let me clarify so this does not happen again with you. Gamets are designed to randomize some of the genetic code, and once two gametes meet and become a zygote, they randomize again. Teeth are designed to chew, eyes are designed to take in light and measure at different wavelengths and amplitudes, and gametes are designed to make diversified offspring.

One easy logical explantion on why we are designed to change is the simple fact that gametes are different from each other, despite come from the same body.

Not the best most in depth example on how genetics is designed to diversify, but I think it makes my point clear.

Let me say one final time, .... teeth are made to chew, voiceboxe's are made to talk, the way genetic code is made in gametes is radonmized for diversity.

This is how our body is designed, just like our veins and arteries constricting whenever we stand up to keep our BP from dropping.

The purpose of a heart is to pump blood, purpose of lungs is to exchange gas, purpose of genetics is to provide diversity.

ALL FORMS OF LIFE (even those that reproduce asexually) are wired for to make variations in offspring, which is a pretty big indicator that evolution is bound to happen.

Yea like I said before, heart is designed to pump blood, genetics is designed to make variations.

Why doesn't the brain pump blood... because thats not what its made for. Genetics is made to encourage variations in offspring, thats its function.

Again... genetics ensures variations in offspring so that when environmental variables change, the genetic code will go on. If thats what genetics does, then you have to say that God made evolution.

Let's just repeat that last quote from you one more time:

Again... genetics ensures variations in offspring so that when environmental variables change, the genetic code will go on. If thats what genetics does, then you have to say that God made evolution.

Now you are going to reverse yourself and argue that genetics does not ensure variations in offspring, or you are going to remain consistent with your Intelligent Design line of reasoning and admit that you're asserting that, "God made evolution."

...that I am a p/g equilibrium follower which is essentially evolution, and the opposite of ID.

Apparently not. Given the alleged omnipotence of these "God" characters you creationists posit, there's just no reason at all to assert that when "God made evolution.," he didn't "design" it with your "p/g equilibrium" in mind.

Ain't that right, Cupcake?

And again this conversation comes down to whether or not you think genetics functions to make variations, which is undeniable what I have been saying this whole fucking time.

And I have not disagreed with this. Have I, Cupcake?

What I have disagreed with, is your assertion that this function of genetics was designed, in accordance with your belief that your "God made evolution"--your OBVIOUS Intelligent Design argument.

 

[sakinago]

I sure do.

In light of your belief that "... ...genetic information is designed to change, designed for diversity, designed to create mutations," it's pretty plain where the end game of "consequently" winds up.

I know what he consequence of your unambiguous belief in a creator of life and a designer of genetics means ... Intelligent Design.

LOLsome. Not if it was ...ahem... "designed" that way.

FOR THE LAST TIME ... YOU ARE NOT ARGUING AGAINST INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

No. I have proven it at each instance.

If you think I can't, I dare you to ask me to link to it.

I dare you.

You have also said you believe in a creator of life, and you have also said you believe life was designed.

You made no argument against intelligent design, and my arguments against intelligent design have not been refuted (with valid logic applied to verifiable evidence) by anyone.

Your ID credentials are impeccable. Your denial of this fact of reality is clownshoes.

I just don't accept the obviously faulty premise of your question, Cupcake. Never-the-less, I did answer your question.

That being said, try to prove I support intelligent design. The fact that I used the word design (which is your only argument) is your only "proof", even though I have used many different words pretty much saying the same thing, ...

"PROOF:

[/B]​

Let's just repeat that last quote from you one more time:

[/B]​

Now you are going to reverse yourself and argue that genetics does not ensure variations in offspring, or you are going to remain consistent with your Intelligent Design line of reasoning and admit that you're asserting that, "God made evolution."

...that I am a p/g equilibrium follower which is essentially evolution, and the opposite of ID.

Apparently not. Given the alleged omnipotence of these "God" characters you creationists posit, there's just no reason at all to assert that when "God made evolution.," he didn't "design" it with your "p/g equilibrium" in mind.

Ain't that right, Cupcake?

And again this conversation comes down to whether or not you think genetics functions to make variations, which is undeniable what I have been saying this whole fucking time.

And I have not disagreed with this. Have I, Cupcake?

What I have disagreed with, is your assertion that this function of genetics was designed, in accordance with your belief that your "God made evolution."--your OBVIOUS Intelligent Design argument.

Hahaha, really thats your proof; "God made evolution" is clearly an argument using the ID logic against them. In other words genetics makes evolution possible, therefore if you believe in ID you also have to believe in evolution...which is an oxymoron. And again you resorted to trying to say that every time I use the word design, I must be refering to ID (which I have never done, or even tried to imply). Again you show that you do not know what ID is, I will say it again; it is the belief that life was designed by god to fit their environment/ecosystem... I will ask it again in what way did I ever align myself with that belief?

I see you went into my point about fine tuning, note that fine tuning is a widely accepted physics problem/concept (and physics and bio are 2 very different animals). First thing I will say about that is try to disprove fine tuning (good luck). Now were going to have to get into pre-universe theorem discussion. Now there are 2 schools of thought: 1. being the universe is finite, 2. the universe infinite (there is also multiverse discussions but whatever multiverse scenario you believe in will fall under one of the 2 schools of thought). Question is, which one do you believe?

 

[sakinago]

That being said, try to prove I support intelligent design. The fact that I used the word design (which is your only argument) is your only "proof", even though I have used many different words pretty much saying the same thing, ...

"PROOF:

[/B]​

Let's just repeat that last quote from you one more time:

[/B]​

Now you are going to reverse yourself and argue that genetics does not ensure variations in offspring, or you are going to remain consistent with your Intelligent Design line of reasoning and admit that you're asserting that, "God made evolution."

Apparently not. Given the alleged omnipotence of these "God" characters you creationists posit, there's just no reason at all to assert that when "God made evolution.," he didn't "design" it with your "p/g equilibrium" in mind.

Ain't that right, Cupcake?

And again this conversation comes down to whether or not you think genetics functions to make variations, which is undeniable what I have been saying this whole fucking time.

And I have not disagreed with this. Have I, Cupcake?

What I have disagreed with, is your assertion that this function of genetics was designed, in accordance with your belief that your "God made evolution."--your OBVIOUS Intelligent Design argument.

Hahaha, really thats your proof; "God made evolution" is clearly an argument using the ID logic against them. In other words genetics makes evolution possible, therefore if you believe in ID you also have to believe in evolution...which is an oxymoron. And again you resorted to trying to say that every time I use the word design, I must be refering to ID (which I have never done, or even tried to imply). Again you show that you do not know what ID is, I will say it again; it is the belief that life was designed by god to fit their environment/ecosystem... I will ask it again in what way did I ever align myself with that belief?

I see you went into my point about fine tuning, note that fine tuning is a widely accepted physics problem/concept (and physics and bio are 2 very different animals). First thing I will say about that is try to disprove fine tuning (good luck). Now were going to have to get into pre-universe theorem discussion. Now there are 2 schools of thought: 1. being the universe is finite, 2. the universe infinite (there is also multiverse discussions but whatever multiverse scenario you believe in will fall under one of the 2 schools of thought). Question is, which one do you believe?

Oh yea forgot to mention. You quoting me on the points that brains dont pump blood, hearts do, birds have hollow bones for flight. Your essentially saying that you dont agree with their functions (which a kindergardeners could tell you the function of a heart and a brain). I realize your trying to say that I am saying that they were designed by god, but its not working. Like I have stated in many different ways, almost all organs/animals/systems have a function, genetics functions to ensure variation in offspring. Like I stated before I (and the rest of fucking science) believe that the function of genetics is to ensure variations in offspring. Notice that I did not use the word design, but the synonym function, just so you cant make gay arguments over the definition of design. And if you go back to all of my post, this is what I have very very very clearly been saying this entire time, no argument over wording will get you around this point.

 

[LOki]

That being said, try to prove I support intelligent design. The fact that I used the word design (which is your only argument) is your only "proof", even though I have used many different words pretty much saying the same thing, ...

"PROOF:

[/B]​

Let's just repeat that last quote from you one more time:

[/B]​

Now you are going to reverse yourself and argue that genetics does not ensure variations in offspring, or you are going to remain consistent with your Intelligent Design line of reasoning and admit that you're asserting that, "God made evolution."

Apparently not. Given the alleged omnipotence of these "God" characters you creationists posit, there's just no reason at all to assert that when "God made evolution.," he didn't "design" it with your "p/g equilibrium" in mind.

Ain't that right, Cupcake?

And again this conversation comes down to whether or not you think genetics functions to make variations, which is undeniable what I have been saying this whole fucking time.

And I have not disagreed with this. Have I, Cupcake?

What I have disagreed with, is your assertion that this function of genetics was designed, in accordance with your belief that your "God made evolution."--your OBVIOUS Intelligent Design argument.

Hahaha, really thats your proof; "God made evolution" is clearly an argument using the ID logic against them. In other words genetics makes evolution possible, therefore if you believe in ID you also have to believe in evolution...which is an oxymoron. And again you resorted to trying to say that every time I use the word design, I must be refering to ID (which I have never done, or even tried to imply). Again you show that you do not know what ID is, I will say it again; it is the belief that life was designed by god to fit their environment/ecosystem... I will ask it again in what way did I ever align myself with that belief?

When you said it was designed.

WOW! That was easy!

I see you went into my point about fine tuning, note that fine tuning is a widely accepted physics problem/concept (and physics and bio are 2 very different animals). First thing I will say about that is try to disprove fine tuning (good luck).

I don't have to. The burden of proof is upon those who assert it was "tuned."

Now were going to have to get into pre-universe theorem discussion.

No we don't, but since you're sure you're going to be more comfortable there, go right on ahead.

Now there are 2 schools of thought: 1. being the universe is finite, 2. the universe infinite (there is also multiverse discussions but whatever multiverse scenario you believe in will fall under one of the 2 schools of thought). Question is, which one do you believe?

I'm not entirely sure. It seems likely (to me) that it is infinite in one way or another, but what I think is irrelevant to any point you're likely to make.

 

[LOki]

Oh yea forgot to mention. You quoting me on the points that brains dont pump blood, hearts do, birds have hollow bones for flight. Your essentially saying that you dont agree with their functions (which a kindergardeners could tell you the function of a heart and a brain).

You're a fucking idiot. Learn to read.

I realize your trying to say that I am saying that they were designed by god, but its not working.

It sure is, because that's exactly what you are saying. I can quote you again if you don't think so.

Like I have stated in many different ways, almost all organs/animals/systems have a function, genetics functions to ensure variation in offspring.

I have NEVER disagreed with the functions you have described for the organs/processes/whatever you cite ... I disagree with your Intelligent-Design assertions that those organs/processes/whatever were designed, or made by design for some purpose.

If you tell me once again that you have NOT been saying this, I will just repost your own words that prove otherwise.

Do you understand that, Cupcake?

Like I stated before I (and the rest of fucking science) believe that the function of genetics is to ensure variations in offspring. Notice that I did not use the word design, but the synonym function, just so you cant make gay arguments over the definition of design.

"Design" and "Function" are not synonyms. "Design" always asserts an intent to purpose.

And if you go back to all of my post, this is what I have very very very clearly been saying this entire time, no argument over wording will get you around this point.

I agree. You have been arguing for a designer the whole time. Would you like proof? I can post your very own words again if you like. You have been VERY clear on this point--despite your mendacious denials.

 

[sakinago]

"PROOF:

[/B]​

Let's just repeat that last quote from you one more time:

[/B]​

Now you are going to reverse yourself and argue that genetics does not ensure variations in offspring, or you are going to remain consistent with your Intelligent Design line of reasoning and admit that you're asserting that, "God made evolution."

Apparently not. Given the alleged omnipotence of these "God" characters you creationists posit, there's just no reason at all to assert that when "God made evolution.," he didn't "design" it with your "p/g equilibrium" in mind.

Ain't that right, Cupcake?

And I have not disagreed with this. Have I, Cupcake?

What I have disagreed with, is your assertion that this function of genetics was designed, in accordance with your belief that your "God made evolution."--your OBVIOUS Intelligent Design argument.

Hahaha, really thats your proof; "God made evolution" is clearly an argument using the ID logic against them. In other words genetics makes evolution possible, therefore if you believe in ID you also have to believe in evolution...which is an oxymoron. And again you resorted to trying to say that every time I use the word design, I must be refering to ID (which I have never done, or even tried to imply). Again you show that you do not know what ID is, I will say it again; it is the belief that life was designed by god to fit their environment/ecosystem... I will ask it again in what way did I ever align myself with that belief?

When you said it was designed.

WOW! That was easy!

I don't have to. The burden of proof is upon those who assert it was "tuned."

Now were going to have to get into pre-universe theorem discussion.

No we don't, but since you're sure you're going to be more comfortable there, go right on ahead.

Now there are 2 schools of thought: 1. being the universe is finite, 2. the universe infinite (there is also multiverse discussions but whatever multiverse scenario you believe in will fall under one of the 2 schools of thought). Question is, which one do you believe?

I'm not entirely sure. It seems likely (to me) that it is infinite in one way or another, but what I think is irrelevant to any point you're likely to make.

You still assert that when I say design, I can only be talking about ID. Which I have dis-proven every single time, (e.g. see my function comment from last post). You still have not adressed this issue.

Need I remind you that you brought up the fine tuning when you tried to quote it as ID... its apples and oranges. As for proof, exhibit A is the laws of physics, nuff said.

As for the question of an infinite universe, physicist are moving more and more towards a finite universe b/c of our earliest photos of the universe post big bang/inflation shows the shockwaves from the bang behave like ripples inside of a bathtub, not ripples on an infinite lake. This suggest that the universe is finite, or that space is basically bent on itself. This raises a lot of questions, about pre-universe... not going to get into it...why, because i have to get going to watch the game tonight.

 

[LOki]

You still assert that when I say design, I can only be talking about ID.

I assert that when you say design, you mean:

de·sign   [dih-zahyn]
verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.​

Design is a function of intelligence; it is an expression of will to purpose; it is synonymous with "intent." Your Intelligent-Design credentials are obvious, and intact.

You've been outed. Get over it already.

Which I have dis-proven every single time, (e.g. see my function comment from last post).

Which you have FAILED to disprove.

You still have not adressed this issue.

I have. Quite thoroughly, thank you.

Need I remind you that you brought up the fine tuning when you tried to quote it as ID... its apples and oranges. As for proof, exhibit A is the laws of physics, nuff said.

"Fine Tuning" is a FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Thank you again for validating my assertions.

As for the question of an infinite universe, physicist are moving more and more towards a finite universe b/c of our earliest photos of the universe post big bang/inflation shows the shockwaves from the bang behave like ripples inside of a bathtub, not ripples on an infinite lake.

So?

This suggest that the universe is finite, or that space is basically bent on itself.

Ok. Whatever. Point?

This raises a lot of questions, about pre-universe... not going to get into it...why, because i have to get going to watch the game tonight.

Good.

 

[sakinago]

You still assert that when I say design, I can only be talking about ID.

I assert that when you say design, you mean:

de·sign   [dih-zahyn]
verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.​

Design is a function of intelligence; it is an expression of will to purpose; it is synonymous with "intent." Your Intelligent-Design credentials are obvious, and intact.

You've been outed. Get over it already.

Which I have dis-proven every single time, (e.g. see my function comment from last post).

Which you have FAILED to disprove.

I have. Quite thoroughly, thank you.

"Fine Tuning" is a FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Thank you again for validating my assertions.

So?

This suggest that the universe is finite, or that space is basically bent on itself.

Ok. Whatever. Point?

This raises a lot of questions, about pre-universe... not going to get into it...why, because i have to get going to watch the game tonight.

Good.

Haha please, your whole argument is based on trying to convince me that I believe in intelligent design, and again you go to the word design as your proof which I have substituted many other words, and still have over and over have made my point that I am not talking about a diety designing, but function. I have said this over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. And again... one more time ID is the belief that life was created to fit in an ecosystem/environment; punctuatd equilibium is the exact opposite. Lets see you try to scew that into me somehow supporting ID.

So either I believe in ID and somehow dont know it, or have my definition of ID wrong (which I dont). Or your just a flat out (C. U. N.ext T.uesday), and your only argument is over what is meant by the word design, which is used in my first post as an turning the ID supporters logic against them. Youve used the same moronic argument, trying to say its proof, when really your arguing against well known functions of concepts like circulation, nerves, and genetics. You dont understand ID, you dont understand genetics, you dont understand cancer, you dont understand fine tuning (very very simple concept) and my guess is that you wont understand my c u next tuesday comment (which you are). Do you want me to explain that to you too?

 

[LOki]

You still assert that when I say design, I can only be talking about ID.

I assert that when you say design, you mean:

de·sign   [dih-zahyn]
verb (used with object)
1. to prepare the preliminary sketch or the plans for (a work to be executed), especially to plan the form and structure of: to design a new bridge.
2. to plan and fashion artistically or skillfully.
3. to intend for a definite purpose: a scholarship designed for foreign students.
4. to form or conceive in the mind; contrive; plan: The prisoner designed an intricate escape.
5. to assign in thought or intention; purpose: He designed to be a doctor.​

Design is a function of intelligence; it is an expression of will to purpose; it is synonymous with "intent." Your Intelligent-Design credentials are obvious, and intact.

You've been outed. Get over it already.

Which you have FAILED to disprove.

I have. Quite thoroughly, thank you.

"Fine Tuning" is a FUNDAMENTAL COMPONENT OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

Thank you again for validating my assertions.

So?

Ok. Whatever. Point?

This raises a lot of questions, about pre-universe... not going to get into it...why, because i have to get going to watch the game tonight.

Good.

Haha please, your whole argument is based on trying to convince me that I believe in intelligent design, ...

I'm not trying to convince you of ANYTHING ... I'm exposing you.

... and again you go to the word design as your proof which I have substituted many other words, and still have over and over have made my point that I am not talking about a diety designing, but function.

Your prolific use of the term "design," and the alternatives you use that also assert intention are all proof enough that you're attempting to advance an Intelligent-Design argument without you having said:

... God made evolution.

It gets no plainer than that, Cupcake.

Game over, you've been outed. Get over it.

I have said this over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. And again... one more time ID is the belief that life was created to fit in an ecosystem/environment; punctuatd equilibium is the exact opposite. Lets see you try to scew that into me somehow supporting ID.

Your unsubstantiated definition of Intelligent-Design is just entirely your own, and just too conveniently bullshit. Creationists rename "Creationism" to "Intelligent-Design;" you want to call your version of Intelligent-Design, "Punctuated Equilibrium" ... That's fine with me. You mendacious retards aren't fooling ANYBODY.

So either I believe in ID and somehow dont know it, or have my definition of ID wrong (which I dont).

Which you do. And you know it. Which is not surprising, because you're a proven liar.

Or your just a flat out (C. U. N.ext T.uesday), and your only argument is over what is meant by the word design, which is used in my first post as an turning the ID supporters logic against them.

It's not just your first post, Cupcake. There are at least 6 more after it, and you affirm you mean "design" as you substitute your terms.

Youve used the same moronic argument, trying to say its proof, when really your arguing against well known functions of concepts like circulation, nerves, and genetics.

Oh really? I suppose if this were true, you would quote me directly and link to where I argued "against well known functions of concepts like circulation, nerves, and genetics."

Despite every opportunity to do so, you just can't seem to bring ANY evidence of such arguments.

Why is that, Cupcake?

Could it be that you're just a liar, and this accusation is just another of your lies? Yes?

Thought so.

You dont understand ID, you dont understand genetics, you dont understand cancer, you dont understand fine tuning (very very simple concept) and my guess is that you wont understand my c u next tuesday comment (which you are). Do you want me to explain that to you too?

The problem you're having here Cupcake, is that I actually DO understand all of these things very well; I have demonstrated my understanding with links to back me up. My understanding is inconvenient for your OBVIOUS intention to sneak your creationist bullshit under the radar.

Your lies are all documented and fully exposed.

Your patent creationist underpinnings have been incontrovertibly exposed.

You Sis, have been OUTED! Get over it. It's time for you to move on.