I am unsure why you can't understand the argument,
it's not classical art
Because it doesn't make any sense.
If you want to say that the human body is designed, you would want to show what it has in common with things that we know are designed. Instead, you focus on things that living things do, that no designed things do. Why should I think living things are designed, when all you point to are the differences between living things and designed things?
I think it might be that a determination of what is inappropriate content, especially soft core inappropriate content, is often in the (dirty) mind of the beholder. Old pin-up posters are considered to be art. Song of Songs is Biblical canon. Just because some people can use almost anything as fantasy fodder, does not make them automatically inappropriate content.
Yes: you're pointing out that humans are very unlike machines.designed thing = machines
does that make sense now?
To you
so I take it scantily clad women are your thing?
designed thing = machines
does that make sense now?
Just because something is designed doesn't mean it's a machine.
Some of the most famous pictures and sculptures in the world are 'scantily clad women'.
you still haven't answered the question.
why is it that we have no machines that are capable of self replication, self diagnosis and self repair while the typical human body does it?
Yes: you're pointing out that humans are very unlike machines.
Like the Swastika?Some of the most famous pictures and sculptures in the world are 'scantily clad women'.
You are saying that humans contain designed engineering beyond any machine.does twisting what I am saying get you out of answering a question?
is this your tactic to commit a red herring to avoid responsibility?
do you do this alot?
I didnt see a thread specifically relating to this so here I go (havent posted here before).
I am just wondering, what evidence (not counting The Bible or any holy scripture) that brings about the conclusion that everything (world, universe, us, etc) is designed. Or is it more an assumption that it is designed because its complicated?
You are saying that humans contain designed engineering beyond any machine.
Now you're saying that design = machines.
So if humans are so very unlike machines, then they must be very unlike design.
Which is my point: human complexity is the result of generations of trial-and-error (aka, evolution by natural selection), while modern machinery is the result of forethought and planning.
Case in point: the wheel. Evolution cannot produce a wheel, hence why it doesn't exist in any animals gross anatomy. The wheel is an artefact of engineering, that has existed since humans first put their mind to the most rudimentary of engineering. Yet natural organisms, which are supposed to have been designed by a being of infinite intelligence, contain glaring blunders - inefficient locomotion, inefficient eyes (backwards retina? really?), the vertical spine (no engineer would design human organs to hang horizontally off a vertical spine composed of vertically stacked discs, yet this is exactly what we'd expect from a quadruped that became a biped).
My remark, then, was to tacitly point out that you're inadvertently proving our point: humans are complex, but that complexity belies evolution, not design. We are riddled with features that scream "Adaptation!", not "Omniscient foresight!". To quote the man himself:"We must, however, acknowledge, as it seems to me, that man with all his noble qualities, with sympathy which feels for the most debased, with benevolence which extends not only to other men but to the humblest living creature, with his god-like intellect which has penetrated into the movements and constitution of the solar system with all these exalted powers Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin." - Charles Darwin, 1874, The Descent of Man, 2nd Ed, p 619.
Err... I gave quite a thorough answerso when I ask you the question you have no answer?
designed thing = machines
does that make sense now?
Perfect sense, in that it proves my point.
You claim that the human body is not like a machine.
You claim that machines are designed things.
Therefore the human body is not like a designed thing.
Err... I gave quite a thorough answer. I explained in detail what I meant by my remark: it's not the red herring you thought it was, it was a rhetorical device to get you to realise that you're not making the point you think you are. You are simultaneously comparing humans to machines (both are designed), and putting humans far above machines (machines don't even compare to God's design).
Unless you're referring to some other question I missed? It really would help if you were more clear about what you're talking about.
the human body is more than a machine.
because no machine we have is like it.
therefore it is designed because it has everything our machines have and more,
wow I can't believe you made me spell it out for you.
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?