What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[pitabread]

so if we had something that look like this (just with living traits) you cant say its a car anymore?:

The question you are asking is flawed.. The point is that such a thing wouldn't exist in the first place since a cars physical appearance and functionality is largely derived from the physical material it is made from. You won't find a living thing that looks like that.

It's an illogical and irrelevant question.

 

[xianghua]

The question you are asking is flawed.. The point is that such a thing wouldn't exist in the first place since a cars physical appearance and functionality is largely derived from the physical material it is made from. You won't find a living thing that looks like that.

It's an illogical and irrelevant question.

its a very relevant question.

 

[pitabread]

its a very relevant question.

It's a question about a make believe fantasy object that exists only in your imagination. Maybe it has personal relevance to you, but it has no relevance to the real world.

 

[xianghua]

It's a question about a make believe fantasy object that exists only in your imagination. Maybe it has personal relevance to you, but it has no relevance to the real world.

so why you cant answer that simple theoretical question?

 

[pitabread]

so why you cant answer that simple theoretical question?

First of all, I have answered it. Repeatedly now. The problem is you want people to answer a certain way, and when they don't you keep asking hoping you'll get a different response. That's not how things work.

Second, it's not a theoretical question since it has no theoretical basis. Unless you plan on first presenting your detailed theory on how cars that are also living organisms could exist in the real world.

It's just an illogical, irrelevant question based on nothing more than your own fantastical imagination.

If you want a different and better response, then come up with a better question.

 

[Speedwell]

so this isnt a car if it has living traits:

fine. i will still call it a car because its function and looks like a car.

Call this self-replicating and evolving object a "car" if you want to. That does not mean that it was designed, just because a superficially similar manufactured object we also call a "car" was designed.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so this isnt a car if it has living traits:

A living organism, wouldn't resemble a car.
It makes no sense. As has been told to you multiple times.

Your hypothetical "examples", aren't examples at all. They are IMAGINARY and NONSENSICAL.

A car is a car. It is a manufactured device meant for transport.
The closest thing we have to that, is a horse, which is a living creature that can be used for transport ("can be used", not "is meant for").

That's how "living and evolved" transport looks like.
Living creatures would not evolve into a thing with wheels, gears, doors, a steering wheel,...

It makes no sense whatsoever.

fine. i will still call it a car because its function and looks like a car.

And more importantly: it's not alive and it is build in factories using assembly lines and non-naturally occuring materials.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if we had something that look like this (just with living traits) you cant say its a car anymore?:

Living things don't look like that.

We do have a couple of living things that we can use as transport, though. They don't look like cars. Instead, they look like this:

"transport" is about the only thing they have in common with things like cars, trucks, etc.

If you know of an animal that looks and functions like a car, by all means, share it.

 

[pitabread]

It still amazes me that we are still having to explain the difference between living and non living things.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It still amazes me that we are still having to explain the difference between living and non living things.

I know, right.....
It's also amazing that we keep taking the bait.

Personally, it's become a challenge for me... a challenge that says "what are the magic words that we would need to write, before he will understand how non-sensical his argument is?"

And the sad part is, that the answer to that is most likely that it can't be done (or it would have been done by now). And yet, still we try.

 

[doubtingmerle]

all it need is a self replicating system with variations and organic components. you will not consider it as a design product?

You ignored my question. Once more.

would it have living cells, DNA, a heart, and lungs, and reproduce by having babies that grow to adults?​

 

[doubtingmerle]

all it need is a self replicating system with variations and organic components. you will not consider it as a design product?

Depends.

DNA comes from evolution. Drawings come from engineers. If you can tell me if this figment of your imagination came from DNA or drawings, I could tell you where the "design" likely would have come from.

Was this object specified by DNA or by drawings?

 

[doubtingmerle]

why not? a car that made from different components isnt a car?[would it have living cells, DNA, a heart, and lungs, and reproduce by having babies that grow to adults? Then it would not look like that.

A "car" that has babies that grow up to be adults is not a car.

 

[xianghua]

A living organism, wouldn't resemble a car.

the same for a motor?

 

[Waggles]

Why would one want to act like our distant ancestors, when humans have evolved brains that do so much more?

Evolved brains??!!
And yet at times humans can be the dumbest of all species
on the planet.
Certainly the most evil.
The problem is not our brains, but sin.

 

[xianghua]

A "car" that has babies that grow up to be adults is not a car.

so if this object was able to reproduce (or making babies) then its not a car anymore according to this criteria:

 

[Speedwell]

Evolved brains??!!
And yet at times humans can be the dumbest of all species
on the planet.
Certainly the most evil.
The problem is not our brains, but sin.

Right. So why are creationists so concerned about the origin of our physical bodies, when it is sin we should be concerned with?

 

[Speedwell]

the same for a motor?

Yes, the same for a motor. And before you post that silly cartoon drawing of a flagellum again, I can tell you that it shows none of the critical characteristics which we would use to determine that it was designed.

 

[AV1611VET]

So why are creationists so concerned about the origin of our physical bodies, when it is sin we should be concerned with?

If we don't, science will rush in and fill the gap with their Godless version of the origin of our physical bodies.

 

[Waggles]

Right. So why are creationists so concerned about the origin of our physical bodies, when it is sin we should be concerned with?

Actually I thought Darwinists were obsessed with the origin of our physical bodies.
They're the ones with a plethora of ever changing fairytales about where we come from,
and how it all happened.
According to Darwinists sin evolved.
But the Bible informs us that light and darkness were present from the beginning.