Common designer versus design standards?

[OldWiseGuy]

Nope, it's a molecule.

It's code.........for Goddidit!

 

[HitchSlap]

It's code.........for Goddidit!

Go with what you know.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Go with what you know.

It would be interesting to know the evolutionary history of that molecule. How long would you say it took 'natural selection' to assemble, test, and stabilize it? Can you provide diagrams of each step in the process? Thanks.

 

[HitchSlap]

It would be interesting to know the evolutionary history of that molecule. How long would you say it took 'natural selection' to assemble, test, and stabilize it? Can you provide diagrams of each step in the process? Thanks.

Naturally.

 

[tas8831]

The human body does store fuel for physical activity, in glycogen and long term energy stores of fat. If the average person could tap all their fat stores for energy, those soldiers could march for weeks on end.

The issue is, once glycogen is depleted, which is about 20-25 miles worth in a well trained and nourished person, things get a little challenging from there, if the activity is too intense.

Yes, I know that, dude - I was being sarcastic.

According to the creationist I was responding to, soldiers can only 'go for 5 hours on 2 eggs and some toast' because of 'spiritual math.'

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, I know that, dude - I was being sarcastic.

According to the creationist I was responding to, soldiers can only 'go for 5 hours on 2 eggs and some toast' because of 'spiritual math.'

Gotcha

 

[ruthiesea]

True

True. For that very reason SOME people need to stop using science to support their lack of belief in God as the designer/creator.
Because Science does not address that question and indeed cannot answer that question.

SOME people need to stop using science to support their belief in G-d.

 

[Hank77]

SOME people need to stop using science to support their belief in G-d.

Did you read the post I was responding to? They beat you to it.

 

[ruthiesea]

Did you read the post I was responding to? They beat you to it.

Didn't know it was a race.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I do not believe that my questions are off topic.

They are, because the thread topic is about discussing the single claim that "common design = single designer".

Seeing that I didn't ask you these questions you do not need to concern yourself with them.

Given that this is a public form, I get to concern myself with any post of my own choosing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

html was not the first computer language, how old are you?

I'm a 37-year old software engineer. I know a thing or two about html and its history. And I didn't say anything about it being "the first" programming language. So not sure why you're stating the obvious.

It's a code.

It's a molecule. It's a code by analogy of the role it plays in biological processes. But it is just a molecule.

 

[Hank77]

They are, because the thread topic is about discussing the single claim that "common design = single designer".

The question is how would you distinguish between a singular designer and a group of designers applying a common standard.

The answer to this question you wouldn't be able to if using a common standard.

What matters is the common standard, where did that come from and is it correct?

Pitabread used html as a common standard for web design which is fine but that standard had to comply with standards that came before it or it wouldn't work.

Given that this is a public form, I get to concern myself with any post of my own choosing.

I said you need not to be concerned...if you choose to that is fine, you just sounded rather stressed?

I'm a 37-year old software engineer. I know a thing or two about html and its history. And I didn't say anything about it being "the first" programming language. So not sure why you're stating the obvious.

The only software I ever wrote was in Fortran written on a stack of punch cards. Well no, there was the class in DOS way back when..

It's a molecule. It's a code by analogy of the role it plays in biological processes. But it is just a molecule.

Can you categorically say that there is not a single designer of the DNA molecule or the coding/sequencing in DNA?

Do you want to prove that there is not one designer and if so why?

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you want to prove that there is not one designer and if so why?

Actually, we'd like you to prove one exists.

 

[Hank77]

Actually, we'd like you to prove one exists.

I know you would. But seeing that you are the smarter people you would think that you could prove one doesn't. When you are asked to do that you will claim that isn't the purpose of science.
So appears to me that we are at an impasse, you can't disprove and I can't prove one designer.

 

[HitchSlap]

I know you would. But seeing that you are the smarter people you would think that you could prove one doesn't. When you are asked to do that you will claim that isn't the purpose of science.
So appears to me that we are at an impasse, you can't disprove and I can't prove one designer.

How would you suggest I prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist?

 

[PsychoSarah]

I know you would. But seeing that you are the smarter people you would think that you could prove one doesn't.

I can't disprove the existence of vampires, but due to a lack of evidence for them, I don't believe in them. Same goes for plenty of other things I can imagine but have seen absolutely no evidence for.

So appears to me that we are at an impasse, you can't disprove and I can't prove one designer.

Well, the burden of proof is yours. No evidence means the null hypothesis is the only logical conclusion to make.

 

[Hank77]

How would you suggest I prove that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist?

How would you suggest that I prove that something that is Spirit exists? No DNA, no mass, etc.

 

[PsychoSarah]

How would you suggest that I prove that something that is Spirit exists? No DNA, no mass, etc.

Not exactly our job to figure out how you should support your position.

However, I'll be nice enough to try, following this premise: anything that exists that is relevant to us can influence us in some way. So, if an item has qualities that make it impossible for us to interact with it and for it to interact with us, it doesn't really matter if it does or doesn't exist because it's presence or lack thereof wouldn't make a difference. Usually, theists believe that deities are capable of interacting with us and other physical things, so I'd work with that.

 

[HitchSlap]

How would you suggest that I prove that something that is Spirit exists? No DNA, no mass, etc.

Not my problem.

 

[Hank77]

Not my problem.

Not exactly our job to figure out how you should support your position.

As I said, we are at an impasse.