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.
I do not need to demonstrate the unknown.
You beliefs do. Otherwise they don't make it to some default.
but if such a watch will be exist you will conclude design or a natrual process if you see such one?
Just because there can be does not mean that that is all that was involved.
? How many new species of tigers have we seen in the last 100 years? 1000 years?
nahhhh, dolphins smell, but it's smelling through water which use seperate genes, probably more related to taste, though not sure on that. their blowhole/nose has little/no scent ability.
a creator could just make a functioning kidney in humans and other mamals and such from the start.
Again you ignored what I said and scientists have said about movement, there are many easy ways to imagine it, plus there is no such thing as "the bacterial flagellum" there are dozens of kinds, some more complicated, some les then the example behe used, there are precursor type things such as the type 2 secratory system *think thats the name* I can easily imagine ways of making the flagellum using just the motion of the creature.
It's like the eye, it was once used to try to disprove evolution, except we have shown the step wise means to make the eye that exists now in nature so that went away.
Why would you think little man would need to know how God created, and what the unknown far universe was like in hidden ways?You do, if you make knowledge claims about it. Like you are doing.
No. The laws of nature being the way they are, is the default because we observe them being the way they are.
The default, preferred beliefs of those who do not know, and also oppose the truth of Scripture frankly do not matter.Claiming that they are not (or were not) like we observer them to be, is what deviates from the default and which requires supportive evidence. Got any? Guess not.
since you dont want to discuss this topic anymore i will sum up:I won't even try to unpack this word salad. If you wish to regard a dolphin as an exceptional fish, then you obviously misunderstand the basics of biology. Dolphins are mammals, as has been explained to you multiple times here. Please familiarize yourself with the basics of biology. I understand there is a language issue here, and I appreciate your attempts to communicate in our language, but this is ridiculous. If you really are interested in understanding, then find a way to learn the basics of biology. Are there no biology books in your language you can read? If not, you may want to start with elementary biology in English and work your way up to college level. We have spent multiple posts explaining it to you. You could also go back and read those posts.
lets say that this kind of watch will have living traits. like organic components (proteins, DNAׁ) and a self replication system.If "God" came and told you evolution is real, will you believe him/her/it?
That is a stupid question. You have not provided any necessary information. Where did it come from? Which kingdom does it belong to? Its traits? Is it similar to any other species?
Why would you think little man would need to know how God created, and what the unknown far universe was like in hidden ways?
The claims were His, and the book is proven true already
And that includes the undetectable 7-headed dragon.Since you help demonstrate that science doesn't know either way, science has nothing to say about it.
All we have left is the pretentious, puffed up and platitudes proceeding from the made up closed minds and religion of so called science.
I prefer fact, evidence and reality, thanks.
The forces and laws on earth are not even understood in any deep way by science.
You repeating that they know the nature of the past is ridiculous.
The default, preferred beliefs of those who do not know, and also oppose the truth of Scripture frankly do not matter.
since you dont want to discuss this topic anymore i will sum up:
1) the original talkorigin claim was that if we will find many species with a trait that is shared between unrelated species then evolution will be in a real problem. since we indeed find many such cases talkorigin claim is totally false.
2) we have seen that even if we will find a nested hierarchy in designed objects it will not prove they evolved from each other.
therefore even if nested hieriarchy exist in nature it will not be evidence for common descent.
When talking of all the kinds of animals in the world on an ark, we must talk about things bigger than bugs.the tiger itself is a species that contain several sub- species. its also endangered species so i dont think its a good indication. and remember that i talked about insect and not about big animal like a mammal.
You tell me.... you are the one making claims about how this god alledgelly created things. If by "proven" you mean "is just believed", sure. And that includes the undetectable 7-headed dragon.
Yes, yes... all made up.
How's that internet browsing device working out for you?
ow, come on now.... We both know that this is not true.
Yeah well... we can only concern ourselves with those things that we actually know and understand, right?
Otherwise, all of us are going to have to wrap ourselves in tin foil to avoid being eaten by the undetectable 7-headed dragon. He hates tin foil, you know?
I'm not the one making fantastical claims about the past that fly in the face of observation.... That's what you are doing.
You know what REALLY doesn't matter? The posts of a random dude on a random internet forum concerning his rather bizar religious beliefs that fly in the face of everything we know, understand and observe.
You have a religion.
Beliefs. If you are happy with them, fine
They neither fit the bible, nor can be supported with evidence.
You understand your beliefs, and think everything must fit them. No news here.
Let us go back to beginning of the thread; My contribution would bethe tiger itself is a species that contain several sub- species. its also endangered species so i dont think its a good indication. and remember that i talked about insect and not about big animal like a mammal.
Some Thoughts on Faith and Knowledge (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.руThe famous design-proof:
The Nature is more difficult to understand, than a watch. The latter must be designed, no way around the designer (because the watch is difficult to understand). So, the Nature is designed. Dude, do you argue, what when you would find the watch in the forest the Nature did it? You do argue. If we find the watch in the forest, there is ZERO probability, what the brainless Nature made it. Correct? If the brainless Nature made this watch, then the total Universe must be in total mess to balance the Entropy Law. Mine Religion has the answer: supernatural act of Creation, wonder, because the God is DIVINE one.
What has that to do with the religion of science?I don't. You know what the word "atheist" means, yes?
Not sure we care why you believe, just that you do.I don't hold beliefs based on wheter or not they make me "happy".
You only have evidence painted and tainted with your beliefs.I only hold beliefs that are supported by evidence.
Me either. You are entitled to any beliefs, however removed from the truth of God.I don't really care if they fit with a bronze-age religious text.
Long as we understand you have them and that you think they should be named science for some reason.I understand my beliefs yes. I don't just "hold them" for the sake of holding them. Like some other people.
if a dolphin can smell then what is the problem actually?
first: how do you know its not functional? second: human has another temporary kidney called mesonephros. and this temporary kidney actually does have a function.
lets see. can you add a single part to a compass and make it move like a watch?
i dont think so about the eye too. but lets first deal with the motion system.
Before jumping to conclusions we might ask if some creatures maybe used to be both land and water animals?wow....do you not understand. the problem is for creationist and cdesign proponents to explain why your idea of god would create dolphins giving the illusion of them being evolved from land animals, by having meaningless scent genes that would only have been useful in their past if they lived on land.
Disagree; many proteins have nearly identical functions/perform the same function with differing efficiency. Thus, the probability of getting a protein with a function is far higher than the probability of getting a specific protein sequence. Furthermore, not all sequences are equally probable; proteins with a sequence similar to a different, existing protein sequence are far more likely to occur. Treating it all as purely random chance is erroneous. Not only is it "what works persists" but also "mutations can act upon that which already works".if we go back to axe work on the 150 aa long protein: he conclude that one in every 10^77 we will get that function. so the chance to get this specific function again is about 10^77. do you agree?
-_- do you seriously not know that there are single celled eukaryotes with flagella? Do you not see the connection between how flagella move and the motion of actin filaments in muscle? Do you even know what I am referencing?but a bacteria has a different mechanism for moving. so we need to explain how such a traits can evolve stepwise.
...And a freewill. Is it then a person?lets say that this kind of watch will have living traits. like organic components (proteins, DNAׁ) and a self replication system.
1) the original talkorigin claim was that if we will find many species with a trait that is shared between unrelated species then evolution will be in a real problem. since we indeed find many such cases talkorigin claim is totally false.
2) we have seen that even if we will find a nested hierarchy in designed objects it will not prove they evolved from each other. therefore even if nested hieriarchy exist in nature it will not be evidence for common descent.
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?