juvenissun
... and God saw that it was good.
- Apr 5, 2007
- 25,452
- 805
- 73
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
But animals don't do that. That tells the two apart and it is an excellent criterion.
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.
If a baby is forced to wear clothes, that is not voluntary.
Your point is a strawman.
Why? Bottle-nose dolphins engage in blowhole-to-blowhole sexual penetration for the purpose of sexual gratification. No other creature does that. Why don't you therefore conclude that bottle-nose dolphins are somehow separate from the animals?But animals don't do that. That tells the two apart and it is an excellent criterion.
juvenissun, I still don't understand.
If a planet has what we would consider harsh conditions so that only extremophile bacteria can survive there, you say that disproves evolution? How?
There are places on our planet where only extremophiles can survive - animals etc. wouldn't be able to live. Does that prove evolution wrong in your mind?
Why? Bottle-nose dolphins engage in blowhole-to-blowhole sexual penetration for the purpose of sexual gratification. No other creature does that. Why don't you therefore conclude that bottle-nose dolphins are somehow separate from the animals?
Animals engage in cannibalistic behavior..Humans have been known to do the same..
You can claim that we are not animals, yet we display animalistic traits...sexual gratification,territorial strife,caring for the young,gathering in family groups..the only thing separating us is our higher brain function.
I (or an evolutionist, or a zoologist) can easily debate that.
So, mine is still the best: we wear clothes and animals don't. Simple, understandable, specific, deep, and not arguable.
Many crabs disagree with you. They wear sponges as camouflage and chemical defense.
But I predict a true Scotsman coming.
I (or an evolutionist, or a zoologist) can easily debate that.
So, mine is still the best: we wear clothes and animals don't. Simple, understandable, specific, deep, and not arguable.
I (or an evolutionist, or a zoologist) can easily debate that.
So, mine is still the best: we wear clothes and animals don't. Simple, understandable, specific, deep, and not arguable.
I (or an evolutionist, or a zoologist) can easily debate that.
So, mine is still the best: we wear clothes and animals don't. Simple, understandable, specific, deep, and not arguable.
Again, more assumptions. I never said it was not a falsifiable scientific claim. You, however, cannot say "We have not found life on two planetary; hence, the rest of the cosmos is sterile"
I fail to see how distance and time has anything to do with data. Data transmitted will be the exact same data the rover took on Mars (or whatever other planet it's on).
The time it would take to even pass the knowledge back to us renders the information of no value.
- Sky
Neither time or distance will alter the measurements.
We can choose to lay down our lives for others or not.
We choose to live by law and not instinct.
We choose to discard animal connections and live according to our decisions.
We are self aware.
We are spiritual.
We can communicate abstract philosophical ideas.
We are aware of the passage of time.
We understand cruelty.
We control our reproduction (by choice).
We have a written language.
We keep records of past events.
Our brains are structured differently from animals.
We have a culture that is recorded and built on and shapes our lives that is not dependent on biological transmission.
We alter and control the environment we live in to suit us rather than have it control us.
I could not find any literature reviews over hypotheses involving life from Mars going to earth on the Science Direct database.
Really?
I mean really?
Look. Take your mouse, highlight these words
"hypotheses involving life from Mars going to earth"
then right click and search or copy and paste your words into your search engine of choice.
Here is the lamest engine I could find:
Ask.com - What's Your Question?
The topic is on page one near the bottom.
Mainpage - SETG will test the hypothesis that life on Mars, if it exists, shares a common ancestor with life on Earth.
Tags « NASA Astrobiology - Some scientists believe that if life exists on Mars, it could have been delivered there from Earth on interplanetary meteorites. With funding from NASA’s ASTEP program, a team of researchers is now putting together an instrument that could test this theory.
Did Life on Earth Come From Mars? | Extraterrestrial Life | DISCOVER Magazine
I could not find any literature reviews over hypotheses involving life from Mars going to earth on the Science Direct database.
And all of those are products of our higher brain functions.
Funny how none of those are literature reviews, which is what the OP was asking about. Not to mention none of them are on on the Science Direct database.
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?