PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
-_- we have fossilized cells indeed. should I post some pictures, even though they don't really look like much?
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.
We don't have a fossilized ancient cell that can be compared. We have a possible cell structure that give away no details about how simple or complex it is.
By the way, I hadn't seen this before asking you again to answer it.
Since you are one of the leading practitioners of on evasion on the forum you should know but here I suspect you are wrong.And this folks is a perfect example of evasion.
Inability to find evidence of a designer.
Since you are one of the leading practitioners of on evasion on the forum you should know but here I suspect you are wrong.
Dizredux
-_- we have fossilized cells indeed. should I post some pictures, even though they don't really look like much?
Actually, bipedal walking is far more inefficient than quadrupedal walking. The benefits of walking on two legs is that it frees up the hands. Why do you think our species has such bad back and joint problems?
Cheetahs have a far more efficient muscle and lung system than humans do.
Bipedal movement isn't more complex than quadrupedal movement, it is just different.
No, now read what I am saying. WE do have fossilized cells. We do not have any detail other than a possible structure of them and nothing to compare them to present day cells.
So walking may be more inefficient (in your opinion) but it can be seen that "freeing up the hands" has been monumental to the complexity of life that humans have over other animals that remain on four.
What do you think the fossils are if not preserved bits of cell structure encased in a round bubble?
Yeah, but in directly comparing the physical structures themselves, neither is significantly more complex than the other.
A brick wall shows intent for a purpose.
Which only you can understand as a human... however, a random pile of bricks could very well show intent for a purpose as well.
The logical paradox in believing intelligent design is the fact that if everything is designed, there is no way to descern design from natural processes because you have nothing to compare design to. That's why you can't give a good answer as to how you can tell the difference between something designed or not without proving yourself wrong. Think about it.
Not when one person feels that saying "I don't know" is being evasive.I suspect I'm not surprised at your suspicious supposition.
Got anything of value to add to the discussion?
I have never seen a tv or computer designed or constructed. Have you?
If we were to go to a deserted island and we found a structure that had a roof made from leaves and was propped up with sticks that were tied with vines and inside was a bed made from more leaves and nothing else would you think this was designed or not?
Synthetic plastics typically have high molecular weight which means that each molecule can have thousands of atoms bound together. The plastics we use are manufactured to mimic those things in nature that have that same molecular weight. Such as wood, horn and rosin to name a few. The plastic is produced by the conversion of natural products from nature or chemicals therein such as natural gas, oil or coal.
Nothing existed when the Big Band happened
but it is true that all that exists today from all the materials created in that moment, ourselves included.
Very true and if not for fine tuning stars could not have formed and life could not have evolved.
Do we need more than one watch to know if it is designed?
That is due to the fact that you are either unaware or ignorant of fine tuning that produces the appearance.
Lets get this straight. The fine tuning of the universe is an established fact, the finished product appears designed. These two things are confirmed by scientists.
The first is determined by measurement, testing and observation. The second, not based on any biased religious beliefs, is that this observation appears to be an intentional phenomena with the purpose for life to exist.
The subjective part of this is what is used to explain the phenomena.
Fine tuning is the evidence.
OH so you trust geologists to conclude that over 100 environmental factors and features have to be present at the right time in the right circumstances to end up with a specific rock but you dismiss astrophysicists conclusions that the universe is fine tuned to such a degree as to specifically end up with life and that it gives the appearance of an intent for a purpose?
I have never claimed in this entire thread that human life is special.
I am not claiming I can. I am claiming that if there is an appearance of design it denotes the possibility of design.
Due to the fact that design is recognized by an intention for a purpose. The brick wall was designed with an intent by an agent with a purpose.
There is something that you always add to be dismissive, even your own arguments.
I hope you are not serious.
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?