- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,221
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
What did I say that would make you think otherwise?
Now that's a "play" on words.
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 did I say that would make you think otherwise?You understand, I hope, that the changes Brightmoon was talking about took place over many tens of thousands of generation?
Now that's a "play" on words.And not by "chance" or "accident" but by the interaction of random variation and natural selection.
I did, maybe you should also?
My point(s) stand.
I'm sure they do.My point(s) stand.
You can never tell with creationists.What did I say that would make you think otherwise?
"Chance" or "accident" are not accurate descriptions of a stochastic process.Now that's a "play" on words.
View attachment 226937
Here’s your “worms” that became other organisms! As you can see even starfish and humans share a common ancestry. And this was well understood by the beginning of the 20th century . Remember that these lineages can be independently confirmed thru genetics, developmental biology, and paleontology
But on closer examination it turns out not to be man-made, so no conclusion can be drawn.thanks. and flagellum also resembles something that are made by humans (such as spinning motor) as you can see here:
so according to this criteria the flagellum is also the result of design.
That’s true, one possibility I said.Gap creation- Which there’s no evidence for
That isn't true.
You can't just say that evolution can explain something impossible without explaining yourself.
That's nonsense.
That description could apply to every single species.
Actually that could apply to every individual.
Except the problem is that IC systems have never been shown to be a barrier. Possible pathways have always been shown.
so if a robot is made from organic components its not a robot by definition?No. Robots are constructed and are not organic.
Notice that the image has been edited to smooth the flagellar components and give them edges to look like machined parts. Looks like a deliberate attempt to deceive.thanks. and flagellum also resembles something that are made by humans (such as spinning motor) as you can see here:
so according to this criteria the flagellum is also the result of design.
(image from Flagellar Motor Intelligent Design - impremedia.net)
To give Xianghua full credit, I don't think he is looking at that picture as an actual image of the flagellum. Rather, he recognizes it as a schematic of the functional arrangement of the components of the flagellum. His mistake is in assuming that functional arrangement of components is evidence of intelligent design. It's the same mistake that all ID proponents make.Notice that the image has been edited to smooth the flagellar components and give them edges to look like machined parts. Looks like a deliberate attempt to deceive.
An ignorant person might think it looks designed because of this manipulation...
but you imply here that such a fossil will not falsify evolution:starfish tunicates and mammals are close relatives. Deuterostomes . Adult organisms sometimes have body plans that do not look alike but the juveniles do resemble each other . Early human fetuses ( before limb formation) and starfish juveniles do look like tunicate juveniles
not realy for several reasons:Notice that the image has been edited to smooth the flagellar components and give them edges to look like machined parts. Looks like a deliberate attempt to deceive.
An ignorant person might think it looks designed because of this manipulation...
Still no. Man-made motors are designed. Naturally occurring motors you can't tell. Just because it's a "motor" isn't enough.not realy for several reasons:
1) even scientific sources makes the same thing:
A Delicate Nanoscale Motor Made by Nature—The Bacterial Flagellar Motor
2) any object at this scale looks different since its too small.
3) here is an actuall image of the flagellum. and as you can see its very similar to the above image:
(image from » What is the frequency of rotary molecular motors?)
so or so: any motor is evidence for design.
The photographic image doesn't have sufficient resolution, the other images are pure schematics; your original image shows the lipid molecules in the cell membrane, but treats the flagellar structure like machined components - here's a better representation:not realy for several reasons:
1) even scientific sources makes the same thing:
A Delicate Nanoscale Motor Made by Nature—The Bacterial Flagellar Motor
2) any object at this scale looks different since its too small.
3) here is an actuall image of the flagellum. and as you can see its very similar to the above image:
(image from » What is the frequency of rotary molecular motors?)
so or so: any motor is evidence for design.
The phrase "out of place fossil" may imply that the organism from which the fossil is derived didn't die in the same time period as the rock that formed it would suggest. There are several specific locations in which it is well documented that fossils from upper layers of strata sometimes fall deep down and get incorporated into the lower strata layers. Similar things can happen with modern animals at these locations. The resulting fossils are such that the dating of them is inconsistent.but you imply here that such a fossil will not falsify evolution:
"When I said bunnies in the Precambrian i specifically did not mean an out of place fossil "
so now you agree that its actually wrong? so or so i explained why such a fossil will not falsify evolution, so evolution isnt a scientific theory.
That's a lie.if we will find that many species (or even all of them) mix up at the same layer we can claim that they just evolved quickly. easy as that.
i actually refer to unique combination of complex system. so i dont talk about just simple variations. think about how we clasify cars.
not realy. at the genetic level we never seen any scenario for any complex system. not even for a single one.
I think that would be a good idea.so if a robot is made from organic components its not a robot by definition?
If a hypothetical rabbit actually lived in the Precambrian, died then, and fossilized then, that fossil wouldn't be out of place, because it's not like it shouldn't end up in Precambrian layers under those circumstances. Would totally wreak evolution, which predicts rabbits should NEVER have existed during the Precambrian.
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?