religion

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And I never claimed she was either. Nice try though. Too bad your reading comprehension precludes you from any debate. Go sit down in the corner and put the dunce cap back on.

Ok. I reread the article you linked. Who are these conservative historians that are claiming that Tacitus is not reliable?

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok. I reread the article you linked. Who are these conservative historians that are claiming that Tacitus is not reliable?

You are right. No historians have ever debated the passage and it is considered rock solid.

/eyeroll

How about trying to look something up yourself instead of demanding I spoon feed you everything? You never answer my questions so why should I answer yours?

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are right. No historians have ever debated the passage and it is considered rock solid.

/eyeroll

How about trying to look something up yourself instead of demanding I spoon feed you everything? You never answer my questions so why should I answer yours?

That's not what I asked. I asked who the conservative historians she quoted were. I've answered plenty of your questions. Maybe they weren't the answers you were looking for, but I have answered at least most of them.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

....

"I asked who the conservative historians she quoted were."

And I said I was done spoon feeding you answers that you can easily google yourself.

"but I have answered at least most of them."

I will refer you back to this post which you still have not responded to:
http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...postcount=1781

Also, show me a post where you actually answered a question of mine. You are going to be digging a long time to find it.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"I asked who the conservative historians she quoted were."

And I said I was done spoon feeding you answers that you can easily google yourself.

"but I have answered at least most of them."

I will refer you back to this post which you still have not responded to:
http://www.project1999.com/forums/sh...postcount=1781

Also, show me a post where you actually answered a question of mine. You are going to be digging a long time to find it.

Junk DNA is a term that was used by scientists who were content with ascribing uselessness to a large portion of the code found in DNA. Why is this significant? Well as Dembski put it:"Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA."
Can't be a lot more self explanatory than that.
As to your comment on mutations, what am I supposed to answer? You used terms that clearly indicated an intelligent mind acting on natural selection and I called you out on it.

[leewong]

Originally Posted by Glenzig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Junk DNA is a term that was used by scientists who were content with ascribing uselessness to a large portion of the code found in DNA. Why is this significant? Well as Dembski put it:"Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA."
Can't be a lot more self explanatory than that.
As to your comment on mutations, what am I supposed to answer? You used terms that clearly indicated an intelligent mind acting on natural selection and I called you out on it.

Why then do we find useless portions of DNA? Did god put them there to fool us? The linked article stated 10% of the junk DNA was found to have a purpose. What about the other 90%? Why is it there? I know why but do you?

'You used terms that clearly indicated an intelligent mind acting on natural selection and I called you out on it."

You didnt call shit out. Answer the question. Here it is again for you:

"Mutation bad...animal die. Mutation good...animal survive better. How does that process require a mind to govern it?"

So tell me...what mind governs that process? I want evidence to support your answer not a dismissal or dodge.

[Glenzig]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why then do we find useless portions of DNA? Did god put them there to fool us? The linked article stated 10% of the junk DNA was found to have a purpose. What about the other 90%? Why is it there? I know why but do you?

'You used terms that clearly indicated an intelligent mind acting on natural selection and I called you out on it."

You didnt call shit out. Answer the question. Here it is again for you:

"Mutation bad...animal die. Mutation good...animal survive better. How does that process require a mind to govern it?"

So tell me...what mind governs that process? I want evidence to support your answer not a dismissal or dodge.

The point is that instead of saying "there is a large portion of DNA that we have not found a purpose for yet", they were content to call it junk DNA and build evolutionary models around that. Yes there is still a large portion of DNA that is considered junk, but if it was left at that how would you ever find out whether or not it actually has a use. Assuming design forces you to look for the ultimate level of function and purpose in that junk DNA.

You're right that doesn't require a mind to govern it. It also isn't the current explanation of mutation causing any sort of meaningful change in living things. You're use of that explanation, and every other use if the explanation I have read, calls for an intelligence in selecting and discarding certain amounts of genetic information. Information that the organism isn't privy to.

[RobotElvis]

Originally Posted by leewong [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are right. No historians have ever debated the passage and it is considered rock solid.

/eyeroll

How about trying to look something up yourself instead of demanding I spoon feed you everything? You never answer my questions so why should I answer yours?

You are on a slippery slope making a claim of extraordinary size. Glenzig doesn't have to produce any evidence, the burden of proof is on you.

A small minority of historians doubt Tacitus, that hardly serves as proof.

[Frieza_Prexus]

So, is G13 Lumie?

I figure someone here is.

[radditsu]

Originally Posted by Frieza_Prexus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So, is G13 Lumie?

I figure someone here is.

Its not naez? Pretty sure it's naez. I mean its the same shit post trolling he always does in regards to this.