Sociopathy is the result of social conditioning which leads to a lack of natural human values.

What he was saying is that, for many sociopaths, religion is the "social conditioning" your quote above was talking about.

People can choose whether or not to accept what they see on the news. They're not going to burn in hell for it

Fundys think people will burn in hell if they don't obay the word of god.

message 1213 You haven't proved anything. You have NO proof there is no ID and you have NO proof there is no God. That may be what you believe....but that's as far as it goes. It's pretty obvious that neither "side" has the complete truth....for everthing one side "claims" the other can counter. Keep believing what you will.....it's ok....we all don't need to believe the same thing.

Sigh*
if after everything i've posted, you're going to attach to the bible, then i'm going to start ignoring your comments, and simply not respond to you. fair enough?

Wouldn't evolution prove that there is no intelligent design?

The theory describes how design happens

There is a difference between complete fantasy and trying to sift through the science to see what needs to be done to help the world. Your city council has justifiable concerns. Whatever the ramifications, small or large, we sould not be polluting, when it is so very very easy not to do so. This sh!t is common sence you can't be serious about this stuff man. Come on think about it. I mean seriously, take some time and sit in a quite place, turn your mind inward on itself and think about this stuff. I can really tell by many of the posts that I have read from you that you have not done much of this

Is this your version of intelligent design at work? All you have to do is think it and 'poof' it's true.

Ok. What was your point?

Design-wise, men don't need to have nipples physically on them in order to pass them on; they can still be present in the genes or it can come from the woman (why can't it be an all-female thing, like mitochondria?)

Personally, I think a snowflake is a perfect example of intelligent design by nature.

If God isn't nature itself, then He must be pretty busy designing all those snowflakes so intelligently.

Why would He let something so beautiful just melt away in the spring after all that work?

It doesn't make much sense to me to create something so beautiful only to toss it in the bin later.

Oh well; I guess there is simply no comprehending the Mind of God.

I think it's a beautiful expression of certain atmospheric conditions.

The god thing is redundant.

How do you know gender can be assigned to the posited god thing?

It isn't 'tossed away'. It undergoes a transformation event and is recycled.

Which one?

Ok, but the fact is that it would be harmful for the human population if we remove ´´nipple genes´´ in men today.
Nipple gene in men allow for diversity in nipples, if your wife has defective ´´nipple genes´´ your daughter will still have a good chance of getting healthy nipples thanks to your nipple genes.

¿do you still believe that nipples disprove intelligent design?

Evolution will never remove nipples in man, because that would be irreducibly complex. In order to remove nipple genes in man, you would require.

1) Mutation in a woman that moves her nipple genes in to the mitochondria (or any other mutation that would make nipples a women thing)
2) A mutation that eliminated nipple genes in a man

Both mutations would have to occur at the same time and in the same place, and both the woman en the man would have to get married and have kids.

Junk DNA is not junk, it has important functions. You also have to note that examples of junk DNA, vestigial organs or bad design decrease as scientific knowledge increases, there are many examples of genes and organs that where believed to be useless, but later science proved that there where are not useless.

As I said before arguments from bad design and arguments that point to an ´´Evil God´´ (small pox example) might qualify as arguments against biblical creationism, but not against INTELIGEN DESING. Perfection and all loving is not an attribute of intelligent designers, a car that works 75% of the time is still a designed car, because cars have the attributes of something designed.

If large and bipedalism kills 25% of human babies then; why did natural selection selected bipedalism and large brains? If you what to make a strong argument you have to prove that the advantages of and large brains overcome the disadvantages.

All evolution does is prove that life came about naturally. It does not disprove the concept of ID. The probleM is that religious people want to attach ID to the bible, however, according to evolution, the two don't fit together. ID needs to remain a philosophical concept until we can come come up with the science needed to either verify or falsify it. Another problem is that some scientist are to impatient. The concept of ID isn't going anywhere, many scientists are aware of it, if they find something to correlate it, believe me, they'll let us know - unless you subscribe to the conspiracy stuff, then they might not. Regardless, everybody just needs to chill out.

JustDukky: Au contraire madamoiselle…I've proved a lot of things on here. Notwithstanding the fact that I falsified the gentleman's argument for ID in the post you're referring to (Thus proving to everyone that his assertion that ID was falsifiable was fallacious), I also proved the existence of at least one Supreme Being and (in a separate proof on the same, now deleted thread) the existence of God. On this thread, I proved that intelligent design was reasonable & logical and coincidentally proved that people don't really care about proof at all if it differs from their tenaciously held, dogmatic

JustDucky: I think this entire thread is proof that people mainly like to argue & rant at one another, but that is only a hypothesis at this point, though by now enough confirming evidence has been collected on this thread to make it a full-blown scientific theory.