Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[jonathan180iq]

 

[gnostic]

He destroyehd someone's life. Raping a girl doesn't always kill her. It kills her soul and every man who does so should be castrated with a rusty spoon.

I don't oppose that sort of punishment for rapists of girls...or even rapists of young women.

In fact, all men who violate women should be castrated too.

Some Muslims (not all Muslims, mind you), even today still think that it is okay to marry off their young daughters to much older men, demonstrated that just because Muhammad did so, it was okay to do so in this day's environment.

Pedophilia should be illegal, whether the girls consent to these marriages or not, and parents who involved in such practices of arranged marriages, between a man and girl, should be imprisoned and have their custody of their children removed from them.

I don't give a crap that it was acceptable back then, because clearly Muhammad wasn't a good, moral man, especially if he think "child bride" is acceptable.

Yes, use a rusty spoon, on all pedophiles and rapists.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I don't oppose that sort of punishment for rapists of girls...or even rapists of young women.

In fact, all men who violate women should be castrated too.

Some Muslims (not all Muslims, mind you), even today still think that it is okay to marry off their young daughters to much older men, demonstrated that just because Muhammad did so, it was okay to do so in this day's environment.

Pedophilia should be illegal, whether the girls consent to these marriages or not, and parents who involved in such practices of arranged marriages, between a man and girl, should be imprisoned and have their custody of their children removed from them.

I don't give a crap that it was acceptable back then, because clearly Muhammad wasn't a good, moral man, especially if he think "child bride" is acceptable.

Yes, use a rusty spoon, on all pedophiles and rapists.

I agree with this, namely the castration via spoon portion (sounds like my kinda job).
But I do have a question: what about child consent?
I understand that in some societies children may be forced into marriage or forced to consent.
But what about actual consent? Like the "child", depending on which definition you use, knows what's going on.
I'm perfectly fine with people who've hit puberty, and have the knowledge to legitimately consent, going at it.
But I'm fairly easy-going to begin with so I was curious as to what your opinion on that is.

A pedophile is someone who has sexual feelings towards children.
Definitions of children are kids either "before puberty" or "before majority/legal adulthood".
I think that we can kill off the later while still holding the prior (due to obvious medical reasons).
I'd say the first step to that would be proper sexual education, blah blah blah.

I'll stop before I get overly sidetracked and have you answer a plethora of questions...
What if the "child" knows what they are getting themselves into and still gives legitimate consent?
That is your question.

(I'm going to disqualify any child that has yet to hit puberty or is under 13 as well for this question)

 

[gnostic]

I agree with this, namely the castration via spoon portion (sounds like my kinda job).
But I do have a question: what about child consent?
I understand that in some societies children may be forced into marriage or forced to consent.
But what about actual consent? Like the "child", depending on which definition you use, knows what's going on.
I'm perfectly fine with people who've hit puberty, and have the knowledge to legitimately consent, going at it.
But I'm fairly easy-going to begin with so I was curious as to what your opinion on that is.

A pedophile is someone who has sexual feelings towards children.
Definitions of children are kids either "before puberty" or "before majority/legal adulthood".
I think that we can kill off the later while still holding the prior (due to obvious medical reasons).
I'd say the first step to that would be proper sexual education, blah blah blah.

I'll stop before I get overly sidetracked and have you answer a plethora of questions...
What if the "child" knows what they are getting themselves into and still gives legitimate consent?
That is your question.

(I'm going to disqualify any child that has yet to hit puberty or is under 13 as well for this question)

I don't think any girl of that age, can make that sort of decision, consent or not.

Regardless of a girl's consent, the adult man marrying her is still responsible for pedopilia, should be made accountable for his crime...as well as the parents, or any legal guardian, for trafficking child sex.

I consider man having sex with a child, as rape, PERIOD, whether that child consent to it or not.

I don't give crap if it hey back then, 5 years ago, a decade ago, century ago, or 2000 years ago. Pedopilia is pedopilia, regardless of whether that person committing it, is a husband, chieftain, king, emperor or prophet.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I don't think any girl of that age, can make that sort of decision, consent or not.

Regardless of a girl's consent, the adult man marrying her is still responsible for pedopilia, should be made accountable for his crime...as well as the parents, or any legal guardian, for trafficking child sex.

I consider man having sex with a child, as rape, PERIOD, whether that child consent to it or not.

I don't give crap if it hey back then, 5 years ago, a decade ago, century ago, or 2000 years ago. Pedopilia is pedopilia, regardless of whether that person committing it, is a husband, chieftain, king, emperor or prophet.

What about child with child then? I tupped my girlfriend before we turned 16.
You see that line is where pedophilia is somewhat vague with people.
You have to consider the variables, how old she looks, she acts, she seems, how well she relates, right?
If you were 20 years old and whichever your type of "perfect" walked up to you, how would you proceed?
The first thing on your mind wouldn't be, "Is she 18?".
Even if it was, she could easily lie to you, but then by your admission you are still a pedophile.

You're thinking of little kids when I say child, I am not.
I'm thinking of young men and women who are classified as children for not being a certain age.
I'm thinking of people going through puberty with various urges, not children innocent to such things.
If that were the case then I agree 100%, but that isn't how it always is.

You also jumped straight into marriage there, I can agree with that.
Marriage should only be allowed at a certain age, that specifically should be secular.

You jumped to rape claims pretty fast too.
I'm assuming from some form of influence or experience you might feel that way.
But I don't think those claims need to apply to those going through puberty, or really at all.

If it does though I suppose I'm a rapist even though she consented, huh?
Would she also be a rapist even though I consented? Or is that somehow different?
We were both under the legal age.

I don't really get what's so great about sex or all those fetishes, it's just a bunch of overdone 'feel good' actions to me.
Completely primal and another thing I'm voided from, thankfully.
So my questions to you were sent to you specifically because I know you aren't stable on this subject.
I've never gotten the chance to discuss this sort of thing with a 'it's rape!' person before, and it's already interesting.

 

[gnostic]

What about child with child then? I tupped my girlfriend before we turned 16.

What are you talking about? If you were the same as the girl (or, plus or minus 1 or 2 year), then it is not pedopilia.

Pedopilia is adult of 20 or more, with underage girls.

The adult should know better, but apparently some don't or some don't care, thinking they are above the law.

 

[Deathbydefault]

What are you talking about? If you were the same as the girl (or, plus or minus 1 or 2 year), then it is not pedopilia.

Pedopilia is adult of 20 or more, with underage girls.

The adult should know better, but apparently some don't or some don't care, thinking they are above the law.

Oi, isn't that sexist?
Also I wasn't informed we were only talking about people in the middle east, I was going world wide.
Also that "underage" statement is flexible you know...

In my state legal age is 16 but in some places it's 14.
How exactly do you define "underage"? I was defining it as "yet to hit puberty"

Also, weren't you supposed to be one of those people that believed in love?
What if your "love at first sight", or whatever, ended up being 15.
And just because someone might be 15 doesn't mean they look 15...
I'd say that many 15-16 year old kids look about 18-19, so it isn't odd to see them that way, IMO.

...
You somehow confused me
...

 

[David M]

No, not really. In an isolated system entropy goes into equilibrium meaning; no energy entering or leaving the system, no chaos, no disorder, no friction, no entropy or IOW, THE END OF EVERYTHING. Earth is not in an isolated system. The energy from the sun gives life and at the same time it causes chaos and disorder [increase in entropy] or IOW, Nothing last forever or DEATH therefore, the 2nd LoT applies to earth.

Yes, really.

But you are still getting it wrong, an Isolated system means no energy or mass transfers. Where the system is in terms of minimum or maximum entropy has no impact whether it is an isolated system. No energy transfers means it is an isolated system and you can apply the 2nd LoT to it in a meaningful way but if there are energy or mass transfers then you can't unless you also factor in those transfers (i.e. you expand the scope of the system until it can be treated as an isolated system).

The 2nd LoT applies only to Isolated Systems. Living things are NOT isolated systems, our planet is NOT an isolated system. The combination of our sun and our planet is not, strictly speaking an isolated system but it can be treated as such as mass and energy inputs from outside that pairing are pretty inconsequential. So to apply 2nd LoT to the earth you must consider entropy increases in all sources of mass and energy that are transferred to the earth.

This really is basic physics, stuff I learned in school at the age of 14 or 15.

If you want to consider living things in terms of the 2nd Law you cannot apply it just to a living thing, you have to include the effects of the entire isolated system in which that thing exists. So before you can say that living things violate 2nd LoT you have to factor in all energy and mass transfers that affect living things. Which means you must include entropy increases in the Sun (which are huge) and also on the earth in relation to entropy decreases in living things.

I don’t understand this. You said: “the 2nd Law only applies to ISOLATED SYSTEMS.” But here you are trying to justify the ToE with snowflakes as a result of order and complex or decrease in entropy IN AN OPEN SYSTEM. Snowflakes at the end of its journey, i.e., caused by the increasing entropy cannot go further toward higher order and complex, can it? IOW, Snowflakes are consistent with the 2nd LoT and Entropy; it dies like everything else and goes back to an unrecognizable mass.

I can indeed see you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics, which makes one wonder why you feel qualified to keep mentioning it. The point is that snowflake formation is a decrease of entropy for the snowflake but as a snowflake is an OPEN SYSTEM a snowflake in not violating 2nd LoT when it forms. In the same way living things are open systems. Entropy decreases in both are offset by entropy increases elsewhere in their environment.

Human babies in the womb violate 2nd LoT if you just consider the baby, but even you should be able to acknowledge that a human baby is not an isolated system, they are an open system.

Just as snowflakes "die" at the end of their "journey" so do living things, so you should start to realise by this point how nonsensical your argument that life violates the 2nd law actually is.

Please stop pretending like you know the math, ‘cause if you do, then you would have done it long time ago. When you start doing the math then you’re the man and I will argue no more. We are just simple laymen here, aren’t we?

I do know the principles of how to do the math, its not that hard. But I don't need to do the math as others have already done so. Which is what I linked to.

 

[gnostic]

Oi, isn't that sexist?
...

Sorry but how was I sexist?

 

[Deathbydefault]

Sorry but how was I sexist?

No, I'm sure you didn't intend to be.
It just seemed that way the first time I read these two lines...

What are you talking about? If you were the same as the girl (or, plus or minus 1 or 2 year), then it is not pedopilia.

Pedopilia is adult of 20 or more, with underage girls.

You said "girls" instead of "children".
My bad.

 

[gnostic]

Also I wasn't informed we were only talking about people in the middle east, I was going world wide.
Also that "underage" statement is flexible you know...

Actually, I'm against all pedophiles, regardless of religious or cultural backgrounds.

It doesn't matter if it occur in Afghanistan or here in Australia. Pedophiles are vile, as are rapists.

And it doesn't matter if a man or woman, who commit pedopilia upon boys or girls, but male pedophiles occurred far more frequently than women.

Perhaps, I am bit of sexist that I would recommend castration of men, but not that of women, who commit the same types of crimes. Jail sentences for women pedophiles, will do.

 

[JM2C]

If you have read Darwin's journal about his journey around the world on HMS Beagle (The Voyage Of The Beagle, published in 1839), then you will see that his observations showed signs of both macro-evolution and micro-evolution, and no hint of abiogenesis of whatsoever.

When he actually talk of "Natural Selection", "common descent", evolution, in his books -On The Origin of Species, 1859 -The Descent Of Man, 1871 - and various books about animals and plants, none of them talk of first life or abiogenesis, and based on his observations, it talk of both macro-evolution and micro-evolution...

...your talk of abiogenesis and not micro-evolution is nothing but straw-man and utter nonsense.

If you have readThe Voyage Of The Beagle(1839), particularly on the islands of Galápagos, then you would see that his observations of groups of mockingbirds on each island were different, are observations of micro-evolution, as were of his observations of tortoises on different islands. Both the tortoises and mockingbirds were of different species, when you visit different islands; these observations of their physical characteristics of these animals show evolution was of micro-sort, not macro-evolution.

So saying that Darwin's evolution is only about macro-evolution, not micro-evolution, only demonstrated you have ignored or failed to understand his books and observations.

So please, provide sources that Darwin never talk of micro-evolution.

Before we continue our debate, so that we could avoid misunderstanding and accuse me of twisting your words again, can you explain the difference between macroevolution and microevolution from your own understanding, i.e., on how you summarized it from any reading materials or articles like wiki’s and others. Do you read creationists’ websites and study their arguments, because, in all fairness, I do read evolutionists’ websites and study their arguments. We could go back and forth arguing endlessly, with no agreement in sight, on how we understand the differences between macroevolution and microevolution and most of the time we end up insulting each other because we can’t agree on the differences between the two.

 

[JM2C]

Like I said you need to go back over a century to a man that lacked modern knowledge. It is nothing more than a strawman since no one follows Darwin theory of evolution as it was.

The modern theory has gone well beyond Darwin's works. Darwin was ignorant of geology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, etc

So, from Darwin’s molecules to man theory to allele frequency in population genetics is what you’re saying here, right?

 

[JM2C]

I do not need to, see above. You are arguing against a theory as it was over a century ago. All it is not a bait and switch but your own fallacy proving your argument has no merit since you can not tell the difference.

But can you tell the difference between Darwin’s molecules to man theory and the allele frequency in population genetics? This is where you guys lost me because between these two theories is a huge increase in genetic information. Can you account where that new genetic information, between Darwin’s and H-W Principle, came from? No you can’t, because the Harry-Weinberg Principle, the present genetic information, has nothing to do with that gap that the evolutionist could not account for, but use that Principle only, as a switch, from Darwin’s molecules to man theory of evolution, as the bait. You know the bait and switch tactic by evolutionists? You can rearrange all the alleles you want but you can never turn a reptile into a man.

 

[JM2C]

Evolution does not need to answer the origins of life since it deals with life that already exists and/or has existed.

Yes, you do. From where life came from is the main argument in this thread and you guys cannot provide that information. You need to go back to Darwin’s ToE because that is the main argument in this thread [you know the monkey to man theory], but according to you,

Darwin was ignorant of geology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, etc

The funny thing is, your denial of Darwin’s ToE is where your arguments will end up anyway and “They make these proverbs come true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and “A washed pig returns to the mud.” -2Peter 2:22

 

[JM2C]

This is no different that claiming models of planetary orbits need to account for the "origin" of the universe. Like evolution these models cover what already exists, nothing more.

You don’t need to because this is observable while the ToE is not.

 

[JM2C]

Please, oh genetic expert, explain to us laypersons what biological barriers exist between micro-evolution and macro evolution.

What stops small changes over time from becoming large changes over time?

Is there a process, known to man today, by which new genetic information is added to the genome that would evolve to a new feature? Nothing!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Is there a process, known to man today, by which new genetic information is added to the genome that would evolve to a new feature? Nothing!

Mutation. We see it all the time.

EDIT*
Actually went to look this up. Looks like we have on average at least 100 mutations per person. That means every single living person on the planet has at least 100 bits of new genetic information in them that never existed prior to them. On occasion they do things. In fact mutations that are harmful are far more common. But there are mutations that are beneficial.

Do you deny mutations exist? If you don't then you are denying your statement above.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes, you do. From where life came from is the main argument in this thread and you guys cannot provide that information. You need to go back to Darwin’s ToE because that is the main argument in this thread [you know the monkey to man theory], but according to you,The funny thing is, your denial of Darwin’s ToE is where your arguments will end up anyway and “They make these proverbs come true: “A dog returns to its vomit,” and “A washed pig returns to the mud.” -2Peter 2:22

Darwin theory of evolution hasn't been taught in many many decades. Just as physics isn't "newtons physics" anymore. Science isn't limited to one man or to any specific place in time other than now.

 

[JM2C]

Do you have trouble understanding it?

Yes, I do have trouble understanding it. C&P is different from explaining what you’re Copying & Pasting, so if you could summarize it a little bit on how you understand the allele frequency compare to Darwin’s ToE then that would be great.