God created Morality

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_rRjLvFqx3xPNmrx_UlI2bhhzjspVskUdboA2wW7GV8/edit

Because, as you said, i have a red cup, i buy a plate to match. If i have a red cup, red spoon, red plate, but suddenly a brown moose, that destroys the entire matching scheme. That doesnt seem intelligently designed, at least not for the aestetic reason you have been pushing.

Many animals did end up with the same adaptation, but others did not, and remained other colors, with bigger weapons instead.

The thing ramshutu was commenting on was a scientist was saying we have no idea how life came into existence.The more we learn on how advance life is the farther we get away we get in learning the origin of life.

Ramshutu response was it is illogical to attack us because we do not know anything.

"The typical creationist argument is that scientists haven’t provided a detailed"

But the example given was how advance a simple cell was and how it showed god's engineering genius.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z-gKelY_3e0e0u6m4lLeX1zw6Lp7LM8mSCQoQ7x-BCE/edit

Ramshutu stated that it is intellectual dishonesty at worst, to which I added it would commit debate-ending fallacies. I shared Ram's stance that AT WORST, it is intellectually dishonest. I guess I should've clarified that, to which I apologize.

Evolution didnt color match for some irrelevant artistic taste, whatever survives is good. Small animals that had to hide color blended. The moose instead got a pair of big weapons on his head for defense. Either one works.

Your claim is that their matching is intentional. Therefore everything should match.
With the guess and check method of nature, many different features would be present. As long as they keep the animal alive.

I am not being intellectually dishonest all i posted was this.

https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=1099

Life is so advance that science keeps moving backwards in origin in life research.

People usually spout all these facts about science. Like how atoms DNA and laws of physics work.They do this thinking they are disproving god.But because these things are so much more advance then anything we have ever made.It is the most obvious proof that god exist.

Science is real good at telling us how stuff work.It is terrible at telling us how something came to be.Telling me how DNA works does not disprove god made it. It only supports that god made it because it is so advance.

Your rebuttal for my intelligently colored animals also apply to evolution

"It’s intellectual dishonesty at its worst"

It's more than just intellectual dishonesty. It's an Argument from Ignorance fallacy, and arguably an Argument from Personal Incredulity as well.

The typical creationist argument is that scientists haven’t provided a detailed, end to end, evidence based explanation of the origin of life; AND have not successfully reproduced life using this abiotic process in the lab - so we must accept an asserted explanation that God did it, with no explanation, no evidence and no predictive ability.

It’s intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

Why does what not apply to evolution?

Why does that not apply to evolution

https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=1099

Let’s turn this on its head then.

Assume you have a production line - what if it produces is other production lines? Older production lines shut down, and the child production lines produce their own production lines.

What if the production line doesn’t produce an exact copy of itself, but can create an inexact duplicate?

What if these production lines shut down if they can’t find access to materials, or are killed by other production lines?

What if a difference created by inexact copying allowed the production line to be more efficient? Or help extract raw materials from the environment better than competitors.

What if one of the changes the production line made, was to modify the colour of the production lines it produces?

I never claimed to disprove god, only your arguments. Moose are not white year round. They do not match. Does that mean god made a mistake?

Why do you think yourself infallible?

I have no idea where your statement about evolution came from. It is a fact, what did i say that contradicted that?

as I explained in the post below which you ignored

There have been 100 post.Which one did i miss

People compare thing to man made objects because they function just like them

"No it doesn’t. What aspect of this is hard for you to understand?
Cells and production lines work in completely dissimilar ways - as I explained in the post below which you ignored. The only similarity is that cells and production lines take inputs and transform them into outputs via a sequence of steps."

No it is not

http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/comparing-cell-factory-answer-key/

I do believe everything has been created by god.

Telling me how an complicated science topic like DNA or atoms works. does not disprove god made them. But only promote it because they are so advance

We Sure do. i guess evolution is not a fact like you were saying on the other forum.You accept facts when it benefits you

But there are seasonal creature's and camouflage creatures. Who do not take millions of years but change season to season.

Rabbits are brown during the summer but white during the winter.
It would not make sense if god put a black rabbit in the white snow.

So god was using intelligence when he put the white rabbit in the white snow

The problem with your argument is that your opponent believes everything was designed so all natural examples are invalid in his eyes. In other words all examples that disagree with him are invalid. He must think himself infallible, as if he is god, because there is no way he can be wrong, its just those damned blind liberals (lmaorofl)

In your link, if you return to the lesson plan:

"In what ways is it useful to think of the cell as a system? (In general, thinking about a cell as a system helps in understanding individual cell organelle functions, and how they operate within the larger context of the cell.)"

This is a simplification to help young students understand a cell. It is a learning tool. It is not an accurate comparision of cells and factories. It is a simplification for children trying to grasp complex subjects. You need to upgrade from grade school information to something more advanced.

No it doesn’t. What aspect of this is hard for you to understand?

Cells and production lines work in completely dissimilar ways - as I explained in the post below which you ignored. The only similarity is that cells and production lines take inputs and transform them into outputs via a sequence of steps.

Thats the only similarity - and it’s a similarity also shared with many things that aren’t designed, so having that property is not sufficient to claim cells are designed.

It would not make sense for me to get a red cup to go with my blue plate.

So i used intelligence when i got a blue cup to go with my blue plate.

It would not make sense for god to create a white animals in the desert.

So god used intelligence when he put a yellow animal in the yellow desert

And yet we have non white animals in the arctic as well, like the moose which has no reason to hide because he is big, fast, and has big antlers... if the reason was just for it to look nice, why isnt the arctic moose white? Your agrument has just collapsed.

A cell works word for word for what a production line is.Again look at my article

This not working i will reword

Pointing out that the cell works completely and fundamentally differently from a production line at every level, and that the aspects of a production line that are unique to designed things do not apply to cells, and that the only things cells have in common with production lines, it also has in common with fire and flood deposition - very much demonstrate the way you are comparing cells and production lines is fundamentally false, and you cannot use the analogy to infer design - due to all the major differences.

As I keep saying you’re trying to manufacture intent in cells, not by demonstrating cells have key features that demonstrably require a designer - but using loaded analogy, terminology and language to insert your creator where it does not actually exist.

It would not make sense if god put a black rabbit in the white snow.

So god was using intelligence when he put the white rabbit in the white snow

People matching red cups to red plates is a subjective style choice

If i have a red microwave and i get a red fridge. IT Would look nicer because they match.It would make more sense then a red microwave and a blue fridge would it not.

God created animals white to go with the white snow.It look nicer because the match white rabbit with white snow they both match. It makes much more sense then blue rabbit and white snow it would not be smart if he did that

Since a red rabbit and or blue rabbit do not go well with white snow

God was intelligent when he created the rabbit white so it would go with the snow

The “intelligence” you are arguing in the process comes solely from you using human words that imply design. Unfortunately, the words you use to describe something cant change what that something is.
No matter how much you refer to a cell as a production line, no matter how often you use loaded words that imply intent like “made” and “create”, the nature of what a cell is won’t change; it is now and will remain a set of sequential chemical reactions unique only due to the size of the chemicals involved and the result they produce.

dammit this does not challenge the cell fuction like a production line

Which if you would just turn to the 4th example on this article you would see is true

http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/comparing-cell-factory-answer-key/

Is it possible god is behind it all? Yes. But your arguments are just as easily explained by nature as they are by god. Thus your arguments fail. Not because i am blind, but because they are weak, and you refuse to adapt. Cause you think yourself infallible.

Ribosomes aren’t “made by something” and do don't “make” anything and nothing is “constructed” - a chemical reaction occurs that converts amino acids into chains. Just Chemical reactions.

robosomes build proteins. if they are not made how did they get there.
http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/comparing-cell-factory-answer-key/

People matching red cups to red plates is a subjective style choice. During the 60s people liked to mix colors. In japan many young people go out of their way to not match, or at least used to. An intelligent designer can make all things possible. White rabbit, white snow; white rabbit red snow, he can do it.

Nature cannot have mismatch because animals need to hide. The fact that your analogies also happen to always fit the natural model, while god would fit any and all models is a point in favor of the natural argument.

Also science very good at telling us where things came from. Like why many artic animals are white, the rest got eaten, or were unable to sneak up on food and starved. Sounds like a simple, logical conclusion that also fits everything else we found.

God created the animals in the snow white to match the white snow

God created the animals in the desert yellow to match the yellow desert

God created the animals in the tree's green to match the green leaves

God used the same logic to pick the animals color's as my example

I got green cup to match green plate

I got red cup to match red plate

I god blue cup to match blue plate

Give me a second to respond

Again science is really good at telling us how stuff works not how it came to be.

I know how seasonal animals works.I am saying the reason it is that way is because god made an intelligent choice

God created rabbit white to match the white snow.

He used the same logic when pickking the color.

As someone who had a red cup so he god a red plate to match it

Ribosomes aren’t “made by something” and do don't “make” anything and nothing is “constructed” - a chemical reaction occurs that converts amino acids into chains. Just Chemical reactions.

The “intelligence” you are arguing in the process comes solely from you using human words that imply design. Unfortunately, the words you use to describe something cant change what that something is.

No matter how much you refer to a cell as a production line, no matter how often you use loaded words that imply intent like “made” and “create”, the nature of what a cell is won’t change; it is now and will remain a set of sequential chemical reactions unique only due to the size of the chemicals involved and the result they produce.

liberals are blinded. they put aborted babies in vaccines and there telling me there is not a problem.I said that knowing you were not going to understand. when i say you have been blinded by god i mean you have been blinded by god
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/aborted-fetuses-vaccines/story?id=29005539

George bush does magical ritual has kids chant kite hit steal plane must right before 911
https://youtu.be/vdAfqLgjh1s?t=327

Nothing wrong here.

What happens in a cell, is that there are a series of chemical reactions that use enzymes to break down incoming material and then uses another enzyme to reassemble it into long chains, the chemical order of those changes depends on the chemical structure of another chemical.

This is almost identical to how fire works - the only difference is that in a cell there are more steps, and the molecules involved have more atoms in them.

You say all planets, stars, etc are all round, but they are all different types of round. None of them are pervect circles. All of them are different shapes when looked at closer. Where was the planning there?

Many animals grow in winter coats. Hair is not permanent, it grows and changes constantly. Some animals can even change their skin color for camouflage using simple mechanisms we know and understand.

As I said, combustion, breaks down individual raw materials, then in a sequence of steps reassembles the molecules into a lower energy state - fire is a production line.

no it is not

something makes the ribosomes.
The ribosome create the protein. the protein goes somewhere else and someone turns he protein into muscle muscles.

go away

rabbit are brown during the summer bright white during the winter. they are seasonal.

Can you just forget the evolution stuff for a second

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ZRNgGS0JpBElUU_5UFGFRbA3uqfwgPdghX6CfirgTQ/edit

The problem isn’t that we don’t understand - it’s that your explanation and logic is really bad

While it’s nice you unilaterally assert, with no attempt at argument, that a basic sequential process is all that is required for something to be designed - that’s patently untrue.

As I said, combustion, breaks down individual raw materials, then in a sequence of steps reassembles the molecules into a lower energy state - fire is a production line.

The process of a river meandering, flooding and manufacturing an ox bow lake - again a sequence of assembly steps.

These process are clearly not intelligently driven, yet match the process criteria of a production line.

The sequence of steps is not indicative of intelligence, as there is nothing about such sequences that are inherently impossible without intelligent intervention.

A production line on the other hand, which is physical assembly with external acting objects or individuals that are driven from a completely separate mechanism that is separate and distinct from the thing being created - and fundamental re-ordering at the macroscopic level using process and mechanisms that fall outside those that can occur without direction.

You keep ignoring the fact that the aspects that make us aware things are created intelligently are not shared by life.

Rabbit is white because all the not white rabbits couldnt hide and were eaten. Maybe there is a god, but you are failing to demonstrate it.

All the cells work. What does that have to do with chemical self regulating processes and mechanical processes?

1. Being liberal has nothing to do with being a theist. Lots of conservatives are atheist. Lots of liberals are theists.

2. If you assume the only reason you are wrong is because others are blind, then you are beyond help. Do you think yourself perfect and infallible?

That is all that is needed to be the same.

God created the rabbit white to go with the white snow.

I am trying to explain this by listing an example of something that use's the same logic. They do not need to be biologically the same.As long as you can tell both of there colors were picked useing the same logic

that god created rabbits white to match the white snow.God used the same logic to pick the color as someone who has a red plate so he gets a red cup to go with it.

"That’s what is similar between a production line and a cell - and when you express it like that, it doesn’t seem at all indicative of intelligence. It’s only when you deliberately push human words, and human concepts onto the cell (which doesn’t have them), does it sound like it. "

the colors of animals have nothing to do with the cell. i am claiming this to be true.
http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/comparing-cell-factory-answer-key/

There functionality is both exactly the same.Let me ask you this how do you think a factory is made.I will copy your wording and explain the cell version

Do you not think it would take intelligence to create a factory line

But it’s not the same. They are not at all the same other than trivial similarities of process - like you said.

That’s the only thing they really have in common - both have a sequence of steps that are are followed in some sequence from which something else comes out that is bigger than any of the individual parts.

That’s what is similar between a production line and a cell - and when you express it like that, it doesn’t seem at all indicative of intelligence. It’s only when you deliberately push human words, and human concepts onto the cell (which doesn’t have them), does it sound like it.

That’s the problem you have - you talk about life using human terminology of designed things - and rely on these tenuous comparisons to inject the design part. In reality the aspects of designed things that lets us know they are designed are not shared by life - but that’s hard to separate when you use these analogies.