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.
if i understand you right- its not the same, since any stone is functional in this case in any step. this isnt true for an half of a biological system.
There's never 'half' of a biological system. There's a less refined version of it.
Yes; it's also sometimes the case that the principles underlying a theory are algorithmic, so that if the necessary criteria are satisfied, the results are inevitable; for example, that heritable variation and natural selection will result in evolution. In such cases, the core of the theory is factual and the uncertainties concern the ways the various mechanisms involved play out in the natural world.
Yeah. Same as the differences between a Windows operating system and a Linux operating system.
If you really think Linux and windows have "minimal differences", I can only inform you that you are painfully mistaken.Minimal differences really, if you look at it like that
But evolution of either to the other is still just as impossible.
Priceless. That's like saying the Latin alphabet and Chinese characters have only minimal differences.Yeah. Same as the differences between a Windows operating system and a Linux operating system. Minimal differences really, if you look at it like that. But evolution of either to the other is still just as impossible.
Well, aren't you clever? The same as a man's hand is different to a mole’s foot and a bat’s wing. But you knew that already, I'm sure.Priceless. That's like saying the Latin alphabet and Chinese characters have only minimal differences.
Well, aren't you clever? The same as a man's hand is different to a mole’s foot and a bat’s wing. But you knew that already, I'm sure.
I'd really like to believe you're joking, but I have a feeling you're serious. And if you are serious then...... Wow. Clueless would be an understatement.I could account for every icon also, but don't have the time. Either way, it shows the flaws in your analogy.
View attachment 240857
Windows.
View attachment 240856Linux.
Clearly, according to bone evolution logic, these screenshots show that Linux evolved from Windows by time, chance and random processes.
You know pretty much nothing about skeletal structures, writing systems or computer operating systems, do you? And before you complain:Well, aren't you clever? The same as a man's hand is different to a mole’s foot and a bat’s wing. But you knew that already, I'm sure.
I could account for every icon also, but don't have the time. Either way, it shows the flaws in your analogy.
View attachment 240857
Windows.
View attachment 240856Linux.
Clearly, according to bone evolution logic, these screenshots show that Linux evolved from Windows by time, chance and random processes.
The problem is that the underlying code of both have nothing whatsoever to do with eachother.
While the underlying genetics that result in those bones, are the same as well.
Information. Bones require information, and machinery to interpret that information. You demonstrate how this can come about by chance, and I'll accept that adherents to your religion have a basis for their faith. Until then, you're fighting windmills. The underlying genetics that result in bones share common code due to their common Designer.Those are the same bones down to the genetic level . Computer systems don’t make a good analogy. If you want to argue by analogy the analogy has to work!
I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not really convinced of your claims. But please don't feel bad - I am a fast learner, so experts in a number of fields that I know little about do sometimes feel out of their depth when debating with me (mainly when they're wrong).You know pretty much nothing about skeletal structures, writing systems or computer operating systems, do you? And before you complain:
You are a poster child for Dunning-Kruger.
- I'm not an expert anatomist, but I know enough to recognise that you know nothing.
- I am a linguist by training, so I know rather a lot about writing systems.
- I work in IT security so I know rather a lot about operating systems.
Information. Bones require information, and machinery to interpret that information. You demonstrate how this can come about by chance, and I'll accept that adherents to your religion have a basis for their faith. Until then, you're fighting windmills. The underlying genetics that result in bones share common code due to their common Designer.
Unless you're accepting that the evolutionary theory has already been falsified, it's a religion. Scientific theories are falsifiable, and yet the adherents to evolutionism somehow keep believing. I admire their faith, but not the object in which it is placed.1. scientific theories aren't religions.
Unless you're accepting that the evolutionary theory has already been falsified, it's a religion. Scientific theories are falsifiable, and yet the adherents to evolutionism somehow keep believing. I admire their faith, but not the object in which it is placed.
Lack of transitional forms.How was evolution falsified in your opinion?
Last few hundred years.When did that happen?
Evolution's a religion, so the news is not published in such a way. Instead, each new, mysterious missing-link is celebrated for a few years, before its thrown on the garbage heap and a new one is invented.Where was this published?
Because religion is not science.Why did the entire scientific community apparantly miss the biggest news in their field since Darwin?
Common design is the reason for commonalities between organisms. Easier to explain than common descent, as you don't have a mechanism for change that can explain generation of information.Anyway, you had nothing to say about point 2?
Unless you're accepting that the evolutionary theory has already been falsified, it's a religion.
Is this an admission that you do not understand the difference being being able to do something and having done that something? Because you literally just equated falsifiable with falsified.Scientific theories are falsifiable, and yet the adherents to evolutionism somehow keep believing.
Your projection is cute, but I do hope that you have not fooled yourself into thinking that you have made some kind of argument.I admire their faith, but not the object in which it is placed.
Dunning-Kruger at its finest.I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not really convinced of your claims. But please don't feel bad - I am a fast learner, so experts in a number of fields that I know little about do sometimes feel out of their depth when debating with me (mainly when they're wrong).
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?