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.
-_- no, because flagella are not motors. Any resemblance some people might see between a flagella and a motor like in a car is extremely superficial and neglects accounting for the extremely different chemistry of the two.
All known motors are man made therefore the flagellum is man made.
incorrect since the flagellum is clearly not the result of human design.
Why do I get this feeling that we have explained this all to Xinhua before?Clearly? I don't think you understand my point.
Just because some things are designed does not mean everything is. But this is not the first time you have been told this so I don't think you'll get it this time either.
Since a creator could make a motor any way he wants, yours is a logical error.since an indian in any way he want this is a logical er ror.
so you believe that a motor can evolve naturally but a car cant?
Great. You recognise the error in this statement. Now go look at your statement. Do you recognise the exact same error or are you just in denial?again incorrect since the flagellum is made from organic components your first part in your claim is incorrect.
but you cant prove this. you believe this.No, I know a motor can come to be by the means of evolution because I accept and understand physical reality, ie science.
Belief is for religion, not science.
so far the only error i found was in your argument.Great. You recognise the error in this statement. Now go look at your statement. Do you recognise the exact same error or are you just in denial?
so a motor doesnt need a designer. ok.Since a creator could make a motor any way he wants, yours is a logical error.
There are countless refutations of the Watchmaker argument but I like this one in particular:
A beautiful snowflake. People have looked at this and marvelled at its symmetry. How can a water molecule in one arm know what is happening at the other side of the snowflake? What kind of long range information exchange is coordinating the freezing molecules to create such order? Again, it MUST have outside help, all part of a plan.
Our ignorance about complex natural processes led us to the conclusion that they must have been designed. But now we know that simply isn't true. The people in the past who though it was designed can be given a pass, but those people today who still think that, when the information is so readily available, cannot be excused for such blatant wilful ignorance.
We KNOW full well how amazing complexity and order can arise from simple local interactions (and no, sigh, the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not forbid it). It is not a mystery any more, it is a well-known fact. Paley didn't know that, but now we do.
But the snowflake is a flakey design and not a system.
It fails to show any complexity as it can be simulated by a short handful of rules.
In computer language it's "If this, then that"
Once it freezes into this pattern, then the temperature can radiate away and entropy increases.
The snowflake is a frozen very simple set of rules. No complexity or ability to adapt to changes at all.
-_- as an analogy. I've also heard scientists extensively compare neuron signals to flushing a toilet, but that doesn't make the actual processes all that similar. It's just that it helps people to learn if you make comparisons with familiar things.why not consider the flagellum as a motor? after all, even scientists call it a motor.
Well scientists call Bryophytes as amphibians of the plant kingdom as well. Now, don't you go about saying mosses and frogs are the same.why not consider the flagellum as a motor? after all, even scientists call it a motor.
...And Indians don't need to walk single file.so a motor doesnt need a designer. ok.
Multiple posters have pointed out the error in your logic. Are you really unable to understand or are you being deliberately dishonest in saying there is no error?so far the only error i found was in your argument.
how exactly? if all motors are the product of design then a flagellum need a designer too. so where is the logical error here?
unless you can prove that a motor (flagellum) can evolve naturally. in this case it will be indeed a logical error.
Right. Biological "motors" don't.so a motor doesnt need a designer. ok.
-_- as an analogy
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?