DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
so some motors arent evidence for design?
Or you could just admit that you shot off your mouth without checking the source.
Haldane envisaged that groups of monomers and polymers acquired lipid membranes, and that further developments eventually led to the first living cells. source
In the 1920s British scientist J.B.S. Haldane and Russian biochemist Aleksandr Oparin independently set forth similar ideas concerning the conditions required for the origin of life on Earth. Both believed that organic molecules could be formed from abiogenic materials in the presence of an external energy source (e.g., ultraviolet radiation) and that the primitive atmosphere was reducing (having very low amounts of free oxygen) and contained ammonia and water vapour, among other gases. source
It was about whether life could form from inorganic chemicals; aka abiogenesis.
No creationist websites involved.
me: Does Bergman explain that Miller and Urey were not actually trying to 'create life'?
you: Their experiments, along with considerable geological, biological, and chemical evidence, lends support to the theory that the first life forms arose spontaneously through naturally occuring chemical reactions. source
Oh, wait. They were just looking for a better tasting PB&J sandwich, right?
Now I get it. You just don't read what people actually write.You had claimed that Miller was trying to create life (and used crazy Bergman as a source).
Actually, that's an engine. The difference is the fact that "motors" run on electricity while "engines" run on combustion. For what it's worth.When you say "motor", this is what I picture:
View attachment 210933
Actually, that's an engine. The difference is the fact that "motors" run on electricity while "engines" run on combustion. For what it's worth.
It may not be in the dictionary, but I've been around engineering enough to know that there is at least a colloquial distinction. KW is right: if it's got pistons, it's an engine.FWIW
mo·tor
ˈmōdər/
noun
adjective
- 1.
a machine, especially one powered by electricity or internal combustion, that supplies motive power for a vehicle or for some other device with moving parts.
Hey, you're preachin' to the choir.It may not be in the dictionary, but I've been around engineering enough to know that there is at least a colloquial distinction. KW is right: if it's got pistons, it's an engine.
Perhaps you're missing what @Motherofkittens is trying to highlight - the Court made no decision on the claims of ID because even were it to attempt it, there's no Scientific evidence in its favour to assess. Literally, the only thing ID had were religious underpinnings and denial of evidence based science already out there that support the theory of evolution.
Although the Court worded in its decision that 'ID arguments may well be true', it's actually more probable that ID arguments are false, especially given the ID movement had every chance to front any scientific evidence whatsoever which would have not only vindicated the ID movement, but would've meant that ID and all its claims were in fact science and therefore had every grounds to be taught everywhere as science, Including in Dover!
They'd have won this case, hands down!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?