APP - Hypothetical Scenario for Thinkers

Please present your unequivocal proof that biological systems can not be products of design.

Sorry, that's not how logic works. I have no burden of proof when you present me with a challenge to prove a negative. It's up to you to supply evidence in the affirmative.
 
LOL... They once said the same thing about space travel.

Space travel was very difficult, but it did not violate the laws of physics.

The only reason most people think that this is so much more of a natural advancement than it really is is because they don't have an understanding of general relativity.
 
Space travel was very difficult, but it did not violate the laws of physics.

The only reason most people think that this is so much more of a natural advancement than it really is is because they don't have an understanding of general relativity.

For a full run down of Dixie's knowledge of how the universe works, please read my signature.
 
Sorry, that's not how logic works. I have no burden of proof when you present me with a challenge to prove a negative. It's up to you to supply evidence in the affirmative.

Here is your statement: "Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems."

I am challenging you to support your statement with facts. If you can't, then your statement isn't supported and is irrelevant. There is no "logic" involved, other than the fact that you can't make definitive statements without backing them up, and have them be considered fact. If you have proof that biological systems can not be designed, present it. Otherwise, what you stated was false.
 
I suggest you read the rules again. You have been reported.

I suggest YOU read the rules again, [ bad word O_O ]. I've confirmed it personally with Grind. I have every right to call you a [ bad word O_O ].
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is your statement: "Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems."

I am challenging you to support your statement with facts. If you can't, then your statement isn't supported and is irrelevant. There is no "logic" involved, other than the fact that you can't make definitive statements without backing them up, and have them be considered fact. If you have proof that biological systems can not be designed, present it. Otherwise, what you stated was false.

No you're not challenging me to support my statements. You challenged me to prove that biological systems couldn't be designed.

Please present your unequivocal proof that biological systems can not be products of design.

That's not what I said. What I said was this:

Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems.

How hard is that, really? It's not. Biological systems do not have to be designed (they COULD potentially be designed in a lab, I supposed, but it's not a prerequisite). That is not true for machines. That's what I said.

learn2honest
 
This subforum has been created to encourage a higher level of conversation and debate. This subforum inherits all site wide rules, and has some additional caveats:

1) No slurs directed at an individual based on race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation

2) No Personal Information

3) No harassment or intimidation of other members
- This is to be defined as hostility and abuse that is clearly bothersome and uninvited by the receiving party.

Penalty for all of the above is a month ban from the APP Forum. NO EXCEPTIONS. Repeated violations may result in a PERMANENT ban from APP.

Additionally:

Repeat posts, excessive use of marquee tags, trolling, posts spammed with a multitude of smileys, or posts that contain little to no valuable content may or may not be pruned, modified, or deleted through the discretion of the admins. However, it will not result in the banning of the offender.

Petty name calling is still technically allowed, as long as it is not to excess, and is made in jest and it's known to not truly bother the other individual. Keeping in mind however, that seeing as this could be subjective, such posts may be pruned, modified, or deleted.

I politely informed you that it offended me to be called names, and I asked you nicely to not do so. I don't care if Grind and Damo roll their eyes or whatever, as long as this rule is enforced as per board policy. Furthermore, you have contributed nothing substantial to the thread, so you are technically in violation of another rule. Please be advised, your name calling will not be tolerated here. We'll see how much credibility the administrators have, or if this was just a big joke. My understanding was, this forum would be conducted in a more civil manner than the other. If this sort of thing is allowed, what is the difference?
 
No you're not challenging me to support my statements. You challenged me to prove that biological systems couldn't be designed.



That's not what I said. What I said was this:



How hard is that, really? It's not. Biological systems do not have to be designed (they COULD potentially be designed in a lab, I supposed, but it's not a prerequisite). That is not true for machines. That's what I said.

learn2honest

Nope, that's not what appears on my screen at all. I posted your exact words.
 
Yeah, I googled it out of curiosity after I wrote it. The only one I had ever heard as an alternative was silicon. I heard a scientist even say that was the only likely alternative. Turns out there are some other, even less likely alternatives.

The point, I think, is that the point Dixie is itching to make here is absolutely retarded. If I went to a desert and found a refrigerator sitting there I'd have to be retarded to think it evolved and wasn't made by man. Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems.

Post #11

Back up your statement or retract it.
 
Post #11

Back up your statement or retract it.

[ bad word O_O ], I just told you that's not what you asked me. Want to admit that you asked me a totally unrelated question?

Biological systems CAN be the product of design, theoretically. That wasn't my contention.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This subforum has been created to encourage a higher level of conversation and debate. This subforum inherits all site wide rules, and has some additional caveats:

1) No slurs directed at an individual based on race, ethnicity, sex, or sexual orientation

2) No Personal Information

3) No harassment or intimidation of other members
- This is to be defined as hostility and abuse that is clearly bothersome and uninvited by the receiving party.

Penalty for all of the above is a month ban from the APP Forum. NO EXCEPTIONS. Repeated violations may result in a PERMANENT ban from APP.

Additionally:

Repeat posts, excessive use of marquee tags, trolling, posts spammed with a multitude of smileys, or posts that contain little to no valuable content may or may not be pruned, modified, or deleted through the discretion of the admins. However, it will not result in the banning of the offender.

Petty name calling is still technically allowed, as long as it is not to excess, and is made in jest and it's known to not truly bother the other individual. Keeping in mind however, that seeing as this could be subjective, such posts may be pruned, modified, or deleted.

I politely informed you that it offended me to be called names, and I asked you nicely to not do so. I don't care if Grind and Damo roll their eyes or whatever, as long as this rule is enforced as per board policy. Furthermore, you have contributed nothing substantial to the thread, so you are technically in violation of another rule. Please be advised, your name calling will not be tolerated here. We'll see how much credibility the administrators have, or if this was just a big joke. My understanding was, this forum would be conducted in a more civil manner than the other. If this sort of thing is allowed, what is the difference?

Is it possible Dixie is the biggest [badword O_O] on the internet?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here it is all over again, since you missed it or didn't understand it

Here is your statement: "Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems."

I am challenging you to support your statement with facts. If you can't, then your statement isn't supported and is irrelevant. There is no "logic" involved, other than the fact that you can't make definitive statements without backing them up, and have them be considered fact. If you have proof that biological systems can not be designed, present it. Otherwise, what you stated was false.

No you're not challenging me to support my statements. You challenged me to prove that biological systems couldn't be designed.

Please present your unequivocal proof that biological systems can not be products of design.

That's not what I said. What I said was this:

Machines aren't subject to evolutionary forces. They have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems.

How hard is that, really? It's not. Biological systems do not have to be designed (they COULD potentially be designed in a lab, I supposed, but it's not a prerequisite). That is not true for machines. That's what I said.

learn2honest
 
"They (machines) have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems."

This is your direct quote. Support this statement or retract it. You claim that biological systems do not have to be designed and machines do. Either you can prove this or you can't.

I'm waiting.
 
"They (machines) have to be designed. That's not true for biological systems."

This is your direct quote. Support this statement or retract it. You claim that biological systems do not have to be designed and machines do. Either you can prove this or you can't.

I'm waiting.

Yes, biological systems do not HAVE to be designed. We've gone over evolution a million times. You lose that debate.

That's NOT what you asked me the first time. I assume since you're changing your question you're admitting you were dishonest.
 
Back
Top