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.
by i just showed that the evidences shows that without some parts the system doesnt work.
There's a difference between simple and complex and between primitive and sophisticated. The earliest eyespots would not have the complexity and sophistication of contemporary eyespots, which almost certainly means they were functionally inferior.and yet this eyespot can only detect light. so its basically the same.
Irrelevant. Cars aren't alive and don't evolve.i also gave you this analogy: say that you want to design a minimal light sensor to make your car move by the light. how many parts you will need to such a mission?
That was answered in post #1175. Did you read it and understand it?and yet this eyespot can only detect light. so its basically the same. i also gave you this analogy: say that you want to design a minimal light sensor to make your car move by the light. how many parts you will need to such a mission?
because it cant evolve stepwise like evolution required.
if you actually understood how genetic works, you will understand why it cant.Yes it can.
If you actually understood how evolution works, you;d understand how limbs can evolve in a series of many small steps.
again; you showed no evidence for that. basically it means that you have no evidence for the main claim of evolution.By why assume it couldn't evolve?
This goes back to what I said previously about parts potentially having other functions or being part of other systems, etc. How have you ruled all of that out?
Irrelevant. Cars aren't alive and don't evolve.
again; you showed no evidence for that. basically it means that you have no evidence for the main claim of evolution.
if you actually understood how genetic works, you will understand why it cant.
So your support for IC is "a designer can do anything they want"? Unfalsifiable assertions are neither scientific nor evidence. You really have no idea, do you?irrelevant since i talking about designer here. so you can change anything you want. like mutations.
You claimed it was an analogy and it isn't, because the relevant features are not analogous; cars don't evolve. Therefore it's irrelevant.irrelevant since i talking about designer here. so you can change anything you want. like mutations.
I’m not resposible for your education.
This conversation is over.
The basics, are far too painful to acknowledge. Hence, the crude defense mechanisms come out.
Hello there
It is true, you are not obligated to give out intellectual instructions to me but nether the less im curious about what you have to say.
I understand that you may believe that my posts are not quality, you perceive im ignorant and im not in touch with reality.
It does not seem fair for you to keep the 'truth' to yourself - your opinions must be correct, if they were not you wouldnt have them.
Help me to achieve the same level of reality as you have, as it seems im lacking knowledge or awareness in general (.eg uneducated or unsophisticated.)
What have you understood about evolution?
What is this understanding you speak of?
Cheers
Hello my dear
Or in my case - my favourite moral nihlist @VirOptimus - you ask to explain the basics and they will not or cannot!hence the crude defense mechanisms come out.
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?