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.
of course that they are different. even the same gene in both human and chimp is different. the problem here is that the same gene (with it's variations) found in different groups without any nested hierarchy. as we can predict under the design scenario.
so far it's seems that it's only apply to you.
Please, don't make it worse for you. You keep saying that the robot is built. All that that robot is evidence for is that someone could design a robot in general. It is not evidence for "design".you already said that a robot that made from organic components isnt evidence for design. i have nothing to say about that "logic".
you call it animal because its made from organic components and have a replication system? if so a self replicating watch that made from a wood isnt a watch too.
I would naturally consider it an animal because there´s nothing that allows us to tell that it is not. I wouldn´t and couldn´t even know that it´s a robot (=a humanly built machine).you call it animal because its made from organic components and have a replication system?
Doesn´t follow - but whatever. Logic seems to be lost on you, anyway.if so a self replicating watch that made from a wood isnt a watch too.
It hasn't been, at least to the best of my knowledge. At least not by competent scientists. There was a group of creationists that tried to do this but from my understanding they did not use proper collection methodology and they lied to the testing agency. That automatically would void any "dates" acquired in the process. And "soft dinosaur tissue" is not "soft". Multiple level fail here.Please explain how soft dinosaur tissue exists and is being carbon dated to 30,000 yrs old and less .. And please don't insult your own intelligence ..
It hasn't been, at least to the best of my knowledge. At least not by competent scientists. There was a group of creationists that tried to do this but from my understanding they did not use proper collection methodology and they lied to the testing agency. That automatically would void any "dates" acquired in the process. And "soft dinosaur tissue" is not "soft". Multiple level fail here.
But as soon as you find some well respected peer reviewed journal articles that support your claims we can begin.
So you have nothing? Why even post in that case?
So you still have nothing and now are adding insulting others to your sins.Why did you insult your own intelligence ? I ask you not to do that ..
so a robot isnt evidence for design if it's made from organic components and have a self replicating system.
Hello Subduction Zone.Nope, it is only evidence that the universe exists. This just goes to show that creationists do not understand the nature of evidence. The universe is also "evidence" that it arose naturally without any supernatural help. A datum that can be used to support any argument is not evidence.
Hello Subduction Zone.
A universe cannot suddenly just appear, that is pure magic my friend. Your seeing the origin of everything as having what you call, natural causes. You are the one who does not see through the fabric of everything, your not seeing the first cause.
Hello Subduction Zone.Sorry, but this is just an argument from ignorance on your part and off topic. We are not discussing how the universe as we know it began, we are discussing the fact that life is the product of evolution on this thread.
By the way what you just attempted was a MASSIVE moving of the goalposts. One does that when one knows that one is wrong about a lesser aspect of the debate. By moving the goalposts back to the beginning of the universe you in effect not only concede the evolution debate, you conceded the abiogenesis debate, the debate about how our planet formed, the debate about how our solar system formed. The debate about how our galaxy formed. All the way back to the moment of the Big Bang.
Are you sure that you want to do that?
Hello Subduction Zone.
No one can discuss the origin of life or even the origin of the universe, that is impossible.
Observations of the the earliest events do not exist, all we have access to is a partial image of these earlier events. It is impossible to accurately determine to any real degree with any certainty, what actually took place in the beginning. You will be forced to assume specific events took place as the evidence is non existent.
We arrived far to late and after the major events of life and the universe itself, to be able to accurately know anything of worth about these events.
The evolution of life is a speculative attempt at explaining the history of life on this planet. We rely on a partial fossil, a record of only certain life forms for this purpose, yet there is far too much missing in the fossil record. To arrive at any satisfactory theory, we must fill in the blanks, assume this and that, except perhaps for those prone to wishful thinking.
Hello Subduction zone.You are wrong on many of these claims, but that is neither here nor there. You ducked the fact that you made the debating error of moving the goalposts. As I said when someone does that I am usually willing to discuss the topic that they moved the discussion to, but only if they admit that they were on the wrong side of the previous debate.
So if you wish to discuss abiogenesis or the Big Bang that is fine with me, but first you need to admit that once life existed it evolved.
Hello Subduction zone.
I am not making claims SZ, rather I am exposing your belief system, a belief system based purely on observational criteria.
No one can discuss the origin of life or even the origin of the universe, that is impossible.
The evolution of life is a speculative attempt at explaining the history of life on this planet.
We rely on a partial fossil, a record of only certain life forms for this purpose, yet there is far too much missing in the fossil record.
To arrive at any satisfactory theory, we must fill in the blanks, assume this and that, except perhaps for those prone to wishful thinking.
I am not making claims SZ, rather I am exposing your belief system, a belief system based purely on observational criteria.
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?