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.
Loss of prestige and salary are things that most people try to avoid.
why the flagellum isnt a spinning motor? even scientists call it a motor:
The bacterial flagellar motor: structure and function of a complex molecular machine. - PubMed - NCBI
Its a motor only if God isn't involved.
Yep.
And in science, prestige and salary become exponentially higher when you turn fields upside down.
You indeed lose both when you engage in absurdity and bad science.
Was that your point, or were you rather trying to imply some kind of grand conspiracy among millions of scientists?
No. It is a motor in the sense of analogous function.
It's not a motor in the sense of "motors are created in factory assembly lines".
OK nothing caused the universe since time did not exist. Nothingdidit. It just popped into existence for no reason. Perhaps a donkey will pop into your living room for no reason.
The cause of the universe was extrinsic of the universe and that is what Genesis 1:1 implies. God situated extrinsic of creation. So obviously some form of time existed outside of the universe.
Problematic and inferior explanations.
The problem is that you folks call everything "designed". Especially those things that your preconceived beliefs tell you are created by the deity of said religion.Design posits a designer.
An assertion based on evidence.
Claiming the first cause of bio life is exclusively nonliving matter, chemicals is an assertion absent precedent or observation.
All life requires a living cause.
Yes they do.
Why is that?
Naturedidit? Evodidit? Got any other thought stoppers?
No it is not, speaking of assertions.
I do not need you to survive.
Food is necessary, Air and water is necessary, morality is optional.
We do know. God assertion is based on what we do know, not on what we do not know.
That is irrelevant to whether it meets the criteria of being a motor or not.
The definition of motor doesn't include the particular criterion you are introducing.I think it matters a lot, to be clear on what exactly is meant by calling it a "motor", both explicitly as well as implicitly, in these types of conversations.
10. MILLIONS OF PEOPLE KNOW GOD PERSONALLY THROUGH JESUS CHRIST
Jesus Christ has answered millions of people’s prayers and transformed millions of lives from misery, sin and despair to love, joy, peace, hope and victory. Do not be like the fool who says that there is no God. Receive Jesus Christ as your God and Saviour from sin today. Then you too will know God personally.
I don't think anyone is disputing that it is a rotation mechanism.The definition of motor doesn't include the particular criterion you are introducing.
Sure as heck looks like a motor to me!
It's a motor is an observation, and so someone built it is a conclusion based on the observation. The conclusion naturally flows from the observation. It is following the evidence.I don't think anyone is disputing that it is a rotation mechanism.
But the concern is that an implication is: "It's a motor, so someone built it" as a premise rather than a conclusion from the evidence.
It "flows naturally"? Wow. I´m impressed and almost convinced.It's a motor is an observation, and so someone built it is a conclusion based on the observation. The conclusion naturally flows from the observation.
Yes it's complicated, but it's built from very simple chemical basis that build up complexity from the DNA and RNA in the cell. There's nothing miraculous or mechanical in evidence from its construction.It's a motor is an observation, and so someone built it is a conclusion based on the observation. The conclusion naturally flows from the observation. It is following the evidence.
If it has the complexity of a jumbo jet, then its source is intelligence.
If it has astounding nanotechnology, information processing systems, and massive amounts of pre-loaded digitally encoded information, can duplicate quite effortlessly then its source is intelligence. Not natural processes absent intelligence. Intelligence is the most reasonable given the options.
The cell or the bacteria itself is the evidence. The complication of a jumbo jet on a speck is an observation, and the intelligent source is the conclusion based on the observation. They are reasoning from effect to cause. It is following the evidene and not explaining it away due to prior comittments to myths. Assigning supernatural creative powers to chemical reactions etc."The conclusion naturally flows from the observation." is an assertion not a presentation of evidence.
Yet Markov processes based on variation and selection are demonstrably capable of producing biological complexity--the math is air tight.The cell or the bacteria itself is the evidence. The complication of a jumbo jet on a speck is an observation, and the intelligent source is the conclusion based on the observation. They are reasoning from effect to cause. It is following the evidene and not explaining it away due to prior comittments to myths. Assigning supernatural creative powers to chemical reactions etc.
It is implicit in your statement. If there was no time extrinsic of the universe then there is not one known thing which could have caused the universe. NothingdiditNo, that's not at all what I said.
That is called ad hoc exception and would also point out you are using cause and effect to deny cause and effect. If you wish to deny cause and effect, then don't use cause and effect and good luck with that. There is no reason to dismiss an extrinsic cause for the start of the universe based on cause and effect since the alternative leads to absurdities or appeals to ignorance.I don't know what the origin of the universe is.
I'm just saying that the cause/effect argument, is necessarily a false argument.
You have not made a case it is invalid. Nowhere near beyond a reasonable doubt.I don't know what the correct answer is... just that invalid argumentation will not lead you to the correct answer.
No reason not to.There is no reason to pick up that particular book and consider it relevant what it has to say about the origin of the universe.
And nothingdidit or appeals to ignorance has exactly what explanatory power?Even extreme simplistic and vague explanations wouldn't be inferior to the mere claims of any religion, which have no explanatory power whatsoever.
Yawn, like dungeons and dragons has a huge body of knowledge and has explain power. Both are myth. The belief of scientists do not equate to fact and the so-called science is far from exact. Its not like anyone is out there claiming the laws of physics is just as valid as the origin of life theories or naturalistic evolution. They are inferior counter explanations riddled with assumptions and problems, including math.Let alone a huge body of knowledge like evolution theory, of which the explanatory power is overwhelming.
If we find the starship Enterprise on the moon, it is designed, not natural and intrinsic of the moon.The problem is that you folks call everything "designed".
My preconceived beliefs do not have anything to do with Theism.Especially those things that your preconceived beliefs tell you are created by the deity of said religion.
You can't have the one without the other. Besides, it is all taught in the same biology textbooks. They have chapters on the origin of life.Evolution theory doesn't any make claims about the origins of life.
It is a distinction without much of a difference. Obsessions with classifications. Dogmatism.The origins of life are not within the scope of evolution. Evolution theory is about the natural process that existing life is subject to.
Quibbling. You know what i meant.I could agree to that, if instead of "all life" you said "life as we know it".
Yawn. You have explained exactly nothing. Retreated to esoteric mumbo jumbo which is typical defense mechanism. Now you next will be to tell to get an education or some such thing. IOWs shut up. It is usually a precursor underhanded personal attack. Nature runs in the exact opposite direction from complicated to breaking down. Species are giong extinct. Car do not evolve into jets. etc. They rust. There is no reason, other than faith, to assume we go back into our past and there are fish or whatever or we are nothing more than big brained apes. It is myth which appeals to many having next to no basis in reality.Yet Markov processes based on variation and selection are demonstrably capable of producing biological complexity--the math is air tight.
I'm not saying ID is wrong, but you want to prove it by showing that evolution is incapable, you'll have to deal with the math--what you call "esoteric mumbo jumbo." Evolution is capable of producing the biological complexity we observe; the question is, did it? Or did something lese?Yawn. You have explained exactly nothing. Retreated to esoteric mumbo jumbo which is typical defense mechanism. Now you next will be to tell to get an education or some such thing. IOWs shut up. It is usually a precursor underhanded personal attack.
So if Jesus speaks a loaf of raisin bread into existence, and Betty Crocker bakes a loaf of raisin bread into existence, you're going to come along later and deny Jesus spoke His into existence?I'm not saying ID is wrong, but you want to prove it by showing that evolution is incapable, you'll have to deal with the math--what you call "esoteric mumbo jumbo." Evolution is capable of producing the biological complexity we observe; the question is, did it? Or did something lese?
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?