What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[doubtingmerle]

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'm not afraid of no gods.

Got evidence?

 

[pitabread]

so this isnt a watch if it has a living traits:

Do you not understand that you're basically asking, "if this thing was completely and utterly different than the thing it is now, would you still consider it the same thing?"

It's a nonsensical question to begin with.

 

[xianghua]

That is not what I said.

its actually what you said. again: you said that "If you find something with all the characteristics I mentioned, it would be an animal."

so if this object had the characteristics of an animal- you will not call it a watch:

 

[xianghua]

Do you not understand that you're basically asking, "if this thing was completely and utterly different than the thing it is now, would you still consider it the same thing?"

It's a nonsensical question to begin with.

since its looks and function like a watch- its not so different. you realy will not consider this object as a watch if it had an animal characteristics?:

 

[pitabread]

since its looks and function like a watch- its not so different.

But it wouldn't look and function like a watch, that's the point. The reason that watch looks and functions like it does is because of its physical construction.

Again, you're asking if something were completely different than the thing it is now, if it would be considered the same thing. Obviously it wouldn't, because it would be a completely different thing.

Now if you can find me an example of a living thing that happens to look and function exactly like that Casio wristwatch, then we'd be having a different conversation. But you can't, so we're not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

its actually what you said. again: you said that "If you find something with all the characteristics I mentioned, it would be an animal."

so if this object had the characteristics of an animal- you will not call it a watch:

"Having all of the characteristics of animals" is not the same as "having a trait."

Ok, now we are back to something that has "all of the characteristics of animals". In other words we are talking about a new species of animal.

Again, if someone discovers a new species that resembles your picture, I will follow scientific tradition and call that new species whatever the discoverer called it.

You apparently, would argue about his choice of name.

 

[xianghua]

"Having all of the characteristics of animals" is not the same as "having a trait."

Ok, now we are back to something that has "all of the characteristics of animals". In other words we are talking about a new species of animal.

Again, if someone discovers a new species that resembles your picture, I will follow scientific tradition and call that new species whatever the discoverer called it.

You apparently, would argue about his choice of name.

so will you call it a watch or not?

 

[xianghua]

But it wouldn't look and function like a watch, that's the point.

why not? it has numbers, date, its tell the time and so on. and again: its looks like a watch too:

 

[pitabread]

why not? it has numbers, date, its tell the time and so on. and again: its looks like a watch too:

The reason that watch looks and functions like that is because of its physical construction. If you completely change the physical construction of something, including its basic molecular makeup, it's no longer going to look and function the same way.

Look, I know what you're trying to do and it's never going to work. You can't fundamentally change an object's core characteristics and then consider it the same object. That's nonsensical.

You need to get off these silly comparisons of living things with non-living things and just accept the fact that biological organisms are fundamentally different than non-living, man-made objects.

 

[xianghua]

If you completely change the physical construction of something, including its basic molecular makeup, it's no longer going to look and function the same way.

you are welcome to believe it.

 

[pitabread]

you are welcome to believe it.

I don't have to "believe it", I know it.

You don't fundamentally change something and have it remain the same thing.

 

[xianghua]

I don't have to "believe it", I know it.

how do you "know" it? have you build an animal?

 

[doubtingmerle]

so will you call it a watch or not?

If we find a new animal species that resembles a watch, I will call it what the discoverer calls it.

How many times would you like me to repeat that?

 

[Speedwell]

you are welcome to believe it.

You make many errors in logic, all of them what are known in logic as "category errors." You ought to look that up and study it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

why not? it has numbers, date, its tell the time and so on. and again: its looks like a watch too:

An animal might evolve to look like a watch. An animal will never evolve to be identical to a watch.

 

[pitabread]

how do you "know" it?

Because we're talking about the physical properties of different chemicals and physical elements. It's basic chemistry/physics.

 

[xianghua]

Because we're talking about the physical properties of different chemicals and physical elements. It's basic chemistry/physics.

so if an animal will look like this object you will not consider it to be a watch? yes or no?:

if i will see something like that with an animal characteristics i will call it a watch since its function and looks like a watch.

 

[pitabread]

so if an animal will look like this object you will not consider it to be a watch?

An animal wouldn't look like that object. Again, what part are you not understanding about the reason that watch looks and functions the way it does is due to its physical construction?

You're just going in circles again because you refuse to accept that basic physical properties of different things are different.

if i will see something like that with an animal characteristics i will call it a watch since its function and look like a watch.

Then show me an example of an animal that happens to look and function like a Casio wristwatch.

 

[rjs330]

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.

What ugly political agenda are you referring to?

 

[rjs330]

I only conclude design where evidence of design is present.

Is ID present in creation?