- Jan 28, 2003
- 9,969
- 2,521
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
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.
What percent chimp DNA do you have?What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?
It means, You have seen to many Planet of the Apes movies.
ronandcarol
Again, robots are not alive.
Animals are alive.
Why would we want to? The term "watch" carries the implication of "man-made artifact." Why would we want to extend the term to include living creatures?and the difference is? the ability to reproduce? organic components? let me put it this way: lets say that this watch has all the living things traits (self replication, organic components etc). can we still call it a watch?:
(image fromhttps://www.walmart.com/ip/Casio-Men-s-Classic-Digital-Watch-Black/117998329)
Animals come from a single fertilized egg that divides into multiple living cells that organize themselves as directed by DNA to form complex bodies to do biological functions, including the means to obtain food, digest food, obtain and distribute oxygen, use the food and oxygen to power functions, and get rid of waste. They produce sperm and egg cells to reproduce. They experience mutations. They grow to adults through many stages, each viable, and each formed by controlling when certain genes activate. They do this using carbon based organic molecules.and the difference is? the ability to reproduce? organic components? let me put it this way: lets say that this watch has all the living things traits (self replication, organic components etc). can we still call it a watch?:
(image fromhttps://www.walmart.com/ip/Casio-Men-s-Classic-Digital-Watch-Black/117998329)
Why would we want to? The term "watch" carries the implication of "man-made artifact." Why would we want to extend the term to include living creatures?
You are still trying to use functional complexity as evidence of design. You can't do it by playing word games.
so this is not a watch if it has a living traits:Why would we want to? The term "watch" carries the implication of "man-made artifact." Why would we want to extend the term to include living creatures?
You are still trying to use functional complexity as evidence of design. You can't do it by playing word games.
Animals come from a single fertilized egg that divides into multiple living cells that organize themselves as directed by DNA to form complex bodies to do biological functions, including the means to obtain food, digest food, obtain and distribute oxygen, use the food and oxygen to power functions, and get rid of waste. They produce sperm and egg cells to reproduce. They experience mutations. They grow to adults through many stages, each viable, and each formed by controlling when certain genes activate. They do this using carbon based organic molecules.
If you show me something that does all this, I would call it an animal.
If you find something with all the characteristics I mentioned, it would be an animal.so this is not a watch if it has a living traits:
so this isnt a watch if it has a living traits:If you find something with all the characteristics I mentioned, it would be an animal.
If we ever find a new animal species that looks like a watch and tells time, we will call it whatever the person who discovers it calls it.
A name is just a name. It's characteristics will not change if we call this new species a watch.
Should I find such a species, I am thinking I might call it Horologium xianghua, based on the Latin word for sundial.
We are not talking about gravity. We are talking about evolution from a common ancestor. Common ancestry has nothing to do with gravity.No, we don't want to answer your question, because it's a nonsensical question. You can just say "common design explains that, too"
For literally any possible response. And I'll prove it to you.
Instead of requesting evidence of common descent explaining what common design can't, replace common descent with GRAVITY, and common design with "Godforce" in which he pushes things around as he likes..
what can gravity explain that isn't also explained by Godforce?
I think this thread shows otherwise as did the other one.You overestimate the importance of "avoiding a designer" to evolutionary biologists. Most of them either believe in God already or don't care.
And evolution is a man made theory that has no actual evidence of it ever occurring. You have no actual evidence of that watch being created either. Yet you would accept it was and didn't evolve because you understand design.Why would we want to? The term "watch" carries the implication of "man-made artifact." Why would we want to extend the term to include living creatures?
You are still trying to use functional complexity as evidence of design. You can't do it by playing word games.
You can think what you like, but nobody is afraid of finding your "designer." If you treat us as if we are, you will just come across as offensive.I think this thread shows otherwise as did the other one.
And yet all that complexity came from non design? DNA itself is evidence of common design. All things have it which makes things what they are.Animals come from a single fertilized egg that divides into multiple living cells that organize themselves as directed by DNA to form complex bodies to do biological functions, including the means to obtain food, digest food, obtain and distribute oxygen, use the food and oxygen to power functions, and get rid of waste. They produce sperm and egg cells to reproduce. They experience mutations. They grow to adults through many stages, each viable, and each formed by controlling when certain genes activate. They do this using carbon based organic molecules.
Your watch is a non- living machine that does none of this.
If you show me something that does all this, I would call it an animal.
And because I understand design, I understand that functional complexity is not used as a proof of design except by IDists.And evolution is a man made theory that has no actual evidence of it ever occurring. You have no actual evidence of that watch being created either. Yet you would accept it was and didn't evolve because you understand design.
Speedy you are no afraid because you already have found the designer. I'm talking to those who haven't. The issue with your belief in evolution is not about a designer. It's about buying into a man created theory that has no real evidence of it ever occurring instead of trusting what God said himself about how he created things and how long it took him. I know I won't convince you otherwise, but I will continue to refute your understanding of scripture because it is unsupportable. You have also bought into liberal theology unfortunately.You can think what you like, but nobody is afraid of finding your "designer." If you treat us as if we are, you will just come across as offensive.
Why not? You understand it when it comes to everything else. Why not with creation. It's interesting to me that we would accept design for everything else but creation.And because I understand design, I understand that functional complexity is not used as a proof of design except by IDists.
No, they're not afraid of your designer, either. What we are afraid of, if anything, is the ugly political agenda to which creationism is wedded. Otherwise we wouldn't care what you believed, any more than we care that Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat or that Mormons wear funny underpants.Speedy you are no afraid because you already have found the designer. I'm talking to those who haven't. The issue with your belief in evolution is not about a designer. It's about buying into a man created theory that has no real evidence of it ever occurring instead of trusting what God said himself about how he created things and how long it took him. I know I won't convince you otherwise, but I will continue to refute your understanding of scripture because it is unsupportable. You have also bought into liberal theology unfortunately.
I only conclude design where evidence of design is present.Why not? You understand it when it comes to everything else. Why not with creation. It's interesting to me that we would accept design for everything else but creation.
That is not what I said.so this isnt a watch if it has a living traits:
ok.
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?