Is that why you have never answered it? Good one!

spray me with this, maybe that will work...

There are pros and cons to cell division and male-female reproduction. It is ignorant to say that just because cell division is the most efficient means of reproduction that it is the best. Cell division does not lead to genetic variability, which is extremely important to the survival of any species. Genetic variability increases the likelihood that any random catastrophe does not cause a species to become extinct. For example, with great genetic variability, humans might not become extinct if the amount of oxygen in the air suddenly decreases because someone has a gene requiring that they need less oxygen. If this variability did not exist and we all had the same genetic information, any random catastrophe could decimate the population.

I'm legitimately upset that I had class and therefore missed about 5 1/2 hours worth of this thread

They missed it the first time around.

And here I THOUGHT that it went on forever BEFORE!





(And now I've used WAY too many smiley things...so I'll go quietly.

LOL, prokaryotes anyone?
Seriously. Everyone should know this.
It's your sign written in the foundations of the Earth.

Perhaps I should have said "Cell division does not tend to lead to genetic variability"

Either way, the point stands. Some organisms reproduce through cell division, allowing them to create many generations quickly and efficiently, and others reproduce sexually, allowing for genetic variability.

Its not quite as simple as Canuck makes it out to be.

That's the point. I may have any number of different opinions that run contrary to yours, but they are not necessary to prove in order to show the invalidity of yours.

So no. For the purposes of this debate, I do not "claim the contrary by default."

And now for something completely different...

Well, obviously you presuppose the laws of logic, as can be seen in your previous posts:

You talk about ‘evidence,’ which presupposes logic.
You talk about ‘rationality,’ which presupposes logic.
You talk about ‘proof,’ which presupposes logic.
You talk about ‘making sense,’ which presupposes logic.
You talk about ‘logical flaws,’ which presupposes logic.
You talk about ‘fallacies,’ which presupposes logic.
etc, etc.

I am simply asking how YOU account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, you are appealing to in this discussion. If God is not the foundation of logic in your worldview, I’d like to know what is. Simple as that.

"Simple as that"



(Oh, dear... some milk just came out of my nose!)

Yes - if nothing else, this thread has been a fairly simple exercise in using one's intellect. (thus my mostly "absent" position here).

*ehem*

Sorry.

Carry on!

P.S. I mean "simple" as in "un-complicated", not as in "simple" like ReinMan... just didn't want to ruffle anymore feathers than necessary here!

He's not Reinman. He's a very naughty boy.

THis case is closed

Just out of curiosity...
Are you putting forth the word of the bible as "proof" in itself?

If I asked you to prove something, would you answer, "because it says so in the bible"?