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.
Let's first find such a watch. Then we'll see.but what if we will find such a watch? you will conclude design or not?
If it shows evidence of human manufacture we can conclude design. If we cannot find evidence of human manufacture we cannot conclude design. We have been giving you the same answer for a year. It's not going to change, no matter how many whacky examples of imaginary objects you present to us.but what if we will find such a watch? you will conclude design or not?
Sorry, it makes no sense to elevate the King James higher than other translations.
Sure there is. IF you understand the KJV, you understand the agreement of Scripture with Science and History. Instead of having the ancient superstitious half/truth of men who lived thousands of years before Science, you have God's Truth. Your "altered" version doesn't make scientific sense any better than the ancient Hebrew view. Both falsely presume that a "plain reading" is the best in spite of what God tells us:
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Only those born again Christians, who live in the last days, can possibly understand. Dan 12:4
Oh, you're one of those people who think you have mystic understanding which others lack. Such people are very common throughout history.
Unfortunately, before modern psychiatry, most of these people were improperly diagnosed and treated. They were in large part, thrown into the 'looney bin,' and were subjected to horrific experiments and procedures.Oh, you're one of those people who think you have mystic understanding which others lack. Such people are very common throughout history.
in this case by good i mean that this backward retina structure actually improve vision. the opposite of dawkins claim.
but what if we will find such a watch? you will conclude design or not?
but we already found something very similar. for instance: we found a self replicating motor like this one:Let's first find such a watch. Then we'll see.
How would a watch even replicate anyways, how would it create matter? It can't.
If it shows evidence of human manufacture we can conclude design. If we cannot find evidence of human manufacture we cannot conclude design. We have been giving you the same answer for a year. It's not going to change, no matter how many whacky examples of imaginary objects you present to us, or cartoons of real objects.but we already found something very similar. for instance: we found a self replicating motor like this one:
so if such a watch will be evidence for design the same is true for this spinning motor.
(image from VCAC: Cellular Processes: Electron Transport Chain: Advanced Look: ATP Synthase)
Hey! ETC!but we already found something very similar. for instance: we found a self replicating motor like this one:
so if such a watch will be evidence for design the same is true for this spinning motor.
(image from VCAC: Cellular Processes: Electron Transport Chain: Advanced Look: ATP Synthase)
Hey! ETC!
How is that a evidence for design?
we know that a spinning motor is evidence for d esign like any spinning motor designed by humans.
Unfortunately, before modern psychiatry, most of these people were improperly diagnosed and treated. They were in large part, thrown into the 'looney bin,' and were subjected to horrific experiments and procedures.
If the "spinning motor" shows evidence of human manufacture we can conclude design. If we cannot find evidence of human manufacture we cannot conclude design. We have been giving you the same answer for a year. It's not going to change, no matter how many whacky examples of imaginary objects you present to us, or cartoons of real objects.how its not? its a spinning motor. we know that a spinning motor is evidence for d esign like any spinning motor designed by humans.
we also found another motor called flagellum:
again: we know that a motor is evidence for design and not for a natural process.
(image from Bacterial Flagellum)
That is the beauty of Xianghua's argument. It doesn't have to make sense. His basic argument is.Also, how is a watch similar to a cytochrome (I think that's what is depicted)?
There's a term in evolution called analogous organs, and this case might be similar to that (similar, flagellum is not an organ).how its not? its a spinning motor. we know that a spinning motor is evidence for d esign like any spinning motor designed by humans.
we also found another motor called flagellum:
again: we know that a motor is evidence for design and not for a natural process.
(image from Bacterial Flagellum)
Agree. I still don't understand the logic behind his argument.That is the beauty of Xianghua's argument. It doesn't have to make sense. His basic argument is.
1) A and B exist (or conceivably could exist).
2) A was designed.
3) Therefore B was designed.
The argument has taken a hundred forms. A could be a beer can and B could be a mermaid. It does not have to make sense. He just repeats it. Suppose beer cans and mermaids exist. Beer cans are designed. Therefore mermaids are designed.
If you tell him he is wrong, it will be about the 2000th time he was told that in the past year.
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?