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.
Y'know, I've often wondered what Biblical literalists think of Biblical scholarship.
When I first started researching the Bible, I naively used a lot of literalist material as sources. Then when I started looking at more academic material I quickly discovered that what a lot of literalists believe about their own Bible appears to be, well, wrong.
Cool story bro.
As I already said, a couple of the papers I linked touch on the evolution of photoreceptors and also include umpteen references to other papers. Heck, one of the papers I cited to you in the past dealt directly with the evolution of light sensitive proteins.
That's not "data". This is just an unsupported assertion. You have no contradictory data with respect to eye evolution.
In general, anyone who makes a positive claim has a burden of proof.
I also think you're confusing semantics with ontology - it's likely that in common usage, the semantics of 'robot' don't involve natural evolution, i.e. things that evolve naturally are not robots.
Amen, and one which AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History. God Bless you
If you define robot to mean "anything that moves", then yes, some moving things can undergo biological evolution.
No it doesn't.
according to you why a living thing cant be consider as a robot? because it's made from organic components, because it's have a self replicating system or because of both?
and by "evolved" i mean something that can evolve without any designer.
Ah, so the Bible talks about a 13.8 billion year old universe now. I must have missed that bit.
Whatever else the Bible is, it is not a scientific textbook, and it does not contain allusions to scientific discoveries which lay millenia into the future.
Since Adam was made before the big bang of the present Universe, which was 13.8 Billion years ago, in man's time, the first Human is older than the beginning of our Cosmos.
Pretty much - and a claim like that would require definition of the terms first. Robots are artificial, so you'd have a problem applying 'natural' to what they do.if so anyone that claim that a robot can evolve naturally need to prove his claim.
No, that doesn't follow. The definition of 'robot' doesn't refer to natural evolution; nevertheless, robots don't evolve naturally; and something that looks like a robot isn't necessarily a robot.so if something that looks like a robot evolved naturally it's not a robot by definition?
but that paper already start with a working photoreceptor. it doesnt show how it evolved from a non-photoreceptor. so we dont have even a single paper that deal with the first step in eye evolution or the amount of amino acids that we need to change to such evolution.
it's not. here is another good example to show you why ic is real. if we will need to made a car in a stepwise way we cant do this, because car need at least wheels, engine and a chassi. so at least 3 main parts so make a minimal car.therefore if we will have a self replicating molecule it will never evolve into a car. do you agree or disagree?
Are you just trolling, or are you really unable to think this through logically?
Pure fiction. That has neither a scientific, nor even the vaguest biblical basis. It is just you trying to make the Bible say what you want it to say.
I don't know, and I don't particularly care by now. He's made no effort to define his terms, and he hasn't presented an argument. It just looks like time-wasting.I keep wondering if a language barrier is an issue and "robot" means something entirely different to him than it does to the rest of us.
Then again, he keeps referencing other non-living things like cars and watches, so maybe it is just a case of not being able to logically argue something...
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?