What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[rjs330]

You're just stuck in a loop of denial, unable to substantiate your claims. I've already demonstrated examples of applied biological evolution; you've still got nothing in response.

You have not demonstrated the need of evolution from a common ancestor in order to have a scientific applied science where common design would not work. You have not demonstrated any application where common design does not work but evolution from a common ancestor does. You have yet to show any evidence of any occurance of evolution from a common ancestor.

All you have is a man made theory that avoids common design because you have to avoid a designer. Evolution from a common ancestor very neatly avoids the question. So evolutionists can accept it because they do not wish to deal with the question. It's much easier to avoid it all together. Evolution from a common ancestor is the easy way to do that.

 

[46AND2]

You have not demonstrated the need of evolution from a common ancestor in order to have a scientific applied science where common design would not work. You have not demonstrated any application where common design does not work but evolution from a common ancestor does. You have yet to show any evidence of any occurance of evolution from a common ancestor.

All you have is a man made theory that avoids common design because you have to avoid a designer. Evolution from a common ancestor very neatly avoids the question. So evolutionists can accept it because they do not wish to deal with the question. It's much easier to avoid it all together. Evolution from a common ancestor is the easy way to do that.

No, we don't want to answer your question, because it's a nonsensical question. You can just say "common design explains that, too"

For literally any possible response. And I'll prove it to you.

Instead of requesting evidence of common descent explaining what common design can't, replace common descent with GRAVITY, and common design with "Godforce" in which he pushes things around as he likes..

what can gravity explain that isn't also explained by Godforce?

 

[Speedwell]

All you have is a man made theory that avoids common design because you have to avoid a designer. Evolution from a common ancestor very neatly avoids the question. So evolutionists can accept it because they do not wish to deal with the question. It's much easier to avoid it all together. Evolution from a common ancestor is the easy way to do that.

You overestimate the importance of "avoiding a designer" to evolutionary biologists. Most of them either believe in God already or don't care.

 

[pitabread]

You have not demonstrated the need of evolution from a common ancestor in order to have a scientific applied science where common design would not work. You have not demonstrated any application where common design does not work but evolution from a common ancestor does.

See what I mean? You're just stuck on repeat, like a broken record.

It's not my prerogative to demonstrate "common design", though. Those are your claims which you continue to fail to substantiate. If you ever actually decide to respond to my prior examples, feel free. I won't be holding my breath though.

 

[doubtingmerle]

give it a few years and there will be self replicating robots.

That depends what you mean. A robot that can assemble a copy of itself from premade parts is feasible. A robot that will make all its component parts (computer chips, wires, metal to make structural elements, etc) will probably never be possible. And one that can reproduce with the level of variation found in nature is fantasy to the extreme.

 

[xianghua]

And one that can reproduce with the level of variation found in nature is fantasy to the extreme.

and yet you believe its already happened by itself.

 

[xianghua]

See what I mean? You're just stuck on repeat, like a broken record.

It's not my prerogative to demonstrate "common design", though. Those are your claims which you continue to fail to substantiate. If you ever actually decide to respond to my prior examples, feel free. I won't be holding my breath though.

i already falsified this claim. since we know that a sequence conservation has a functional meaning its fit well with a designer too.

 

[doubtingmerle]

and yet you believe its already happened by itself.

No, there never was a self reproducing robot.

 

[xianghua]

No, there never was a self reproducing robot.

why not a penguin?

 

[doubtingmerle]

why not a penguin?

A penguin is not a robot.

 

[pitabread]

i already falsified this claim. since we know that a sequence conservation has a functional meaning its fit well with a designer too.

You've never demonstrated this. All you've done is invoke the same underlying model as biological evolution and call it "design" with no underlying rationale for that.

And no, we're not discussing this again since twice previously we've tried to discuss this you've gone in circles with this claim. Both prior times you failed to demonstrate this and I'm not going down that rabbit hole a third time.

 

[xianghua]

You've never demonstrated this. All you've done is invoke the same underlying model as biological evolution and call it "design" with no underlying rationale for that.

And no, we're not discussing this again since twice previously we've tried to discuss this you've gone in circles with this claim. Both prior times you failed to demonstrate this and I'm not going down that rabbit hole a third time.

fine. so please dont bring up this argument again if you dont want to discuss it.

 

[xianghua]

A penguin is not a robot.

why?

 

[pitabread]

fine. so please dont bring up this argument again if you dont wnat to discuss it.

I'm more than happy to discuss things I post here. However, I don't want to rehash the exact same discussion all over again when the prior two discussions went absolutely nowhere.

In order to actually support any of claims of applied "design", you'd first need to present a coherent design model with respect to biological life forms with which to frame such an argument. You've never done that and neither has anyone else from what I've seen.

 

[doubtingmerle]

why?

Because a penguin is a living animal. In America, when we use the word "robot" we are referring to non-living machines.

 

[xianghua]

Because a penguin is a living animal.

but still you gave no trait that distinguish robot from animal. so again: why you cant consider a penguin as a robot?

 

[doubtingmerle]

but still you gave no trait that distinguish robot from animal. so again: why you cant consider a penguin as a robot?

Again, robots are not alive.

Animals are alive.

 

[pitabread]

but still you gave no trait that distinguish robot from animal.

You've been presented the definition of living things in the past and how those are distinct from non-living things. Pretending otherwise is just being disingenuous.

Besides, should you really be trying to argue about biology if you don't have the basic understanding of what constitutes a living organism?

 

[bhsmte]

but still you gave no trait that distinguish robot from animal. so again: why you cant consider a penguin as a robot?

Does a penguin meet the definition of robot you posted the other day?

 

[ronandcarol]

What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?
It means, You have seen to many Planet of the Apes movies.
ronandcarol