Religon VS Science

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
And you [B] LACK sense, instead of giving me an answer you give me the run around. what function does the leg add that is neccessary for performance of the systems you named? [/B]

The leg's femoral artery is part of the circulatory system. The femur and the soleus contribute to the musculoskeletal system. The golgi tendon organs and muscle spindles in the leg contribute to the somatosensory system which is part of the wider nervous system. Remove the leg components and these systems all still function, however that does not mean that they are not part of the function of the systems.

You clearly know nothing about human anatomy. Stop trying to insist on a false dichotomy because these systems do not agree with your belief in some ad hoc definition. If you're not going to read and comprehend what people say then stop wasting people's time. And go and do something productive like looking for ribosomes in mature mammalian erythrocytes.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh for f*ck's sake.

The leg's femoral artery is part of the circulatory system. The femur and the soleus contribute to the musculoskeletal system. The golgi tendon organs and muscle spindles in the leg contribute to the somatosensory system which is part of the wider nervous system. Remove the leg components and these systems all still function, however that does not mean that they are not part of the function of the systems.

I never said it wasn't part of it, I I said none of the afore mentioned systems are dependent on the leg. I've been telling you this for the whole debate. Instead of addressing this point you elaborate on the function of the leg within these systems, that isn't what I asked. this is pretty much proof of you nitpicking and ignroing hard questions.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

You clearly know nothing about human anatomy. Stop trying to insist on a false dichotomy because these systems do not agree with your belief in some ad hoc definition. If you're not going to read and comprehend what people say then stop wasting people's time. And go and do something productive like looking for ribosomes in mature mammalian erythrocytes.

You can attack my character all you want, but I warn you it makes you look desperate. than again you flukist always take this predictable route, it's quite sad really.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
I never said it wasn't part of it, I I said none of the afore mentioned systems are dependent on the leg. I've been telling you this for the whole debate. Instead of addressing this point you elaborate on the function of the leg within these systems, that isn't what I asked. this is pretty much proof of you nitpicking and ignroing hard questions.

You can attack my character all you want, but I warn you it makes you look desperate. than again you flukist always take this predictable route, it's quite sad really.

Why don't you answer any of my questions?

Do you actually have any background in biology? Even high school biology? Have you ever taken any anatomy and physiology? Do you realise a mature mammalian erythrocyte is enucleated and doesn't perform protein synthesis? 🙂

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Pointless. Having received ample answer to your question, simply not the answer you wanted, you intend to say that no answer has been given.

You never gave a full answer, instead you nitpicked from my question and gave me an answer to something I already know. yes the leg is part of those systems, What I wanted to know wasif those paticualr systems are dependent on the leg to function correctly.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

Why don't you answer any of my questions?

Do you actually have any background in biology? Even high school biology? Have you ever taken any anatomy and physiology? Do you realise a mature mammalian erythrocyte is enucleated and doesn't perform protein synthesis? 🙂

Yes, I'm fimilar with biology. I just disagree with evolution.
Yes I know that red blood cells don't have a cell nucleous, and also lose their organelles when they mature.

ok...so, just clearing things up...

you are a proponent of irreducible complexity right?

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Yes, I'm fimilar with biology. I just disagree with evolution.
Yes I know that red blood cells don't have a cell nucleous, and also lose their organelles when they mature.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
This game your playing is funny, tell me if I were to eliminate the ribosomes of a blood cell would it work?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
😕N.B. context of prior posts to this indicates reference to erythrocytes. Also context of prior posts indicates reference to mammalian.

And your point, other than to avoid debating me,. I never said anything about mammalian erythrocytes. instead of debating me you foucs on grammatical error's and typo's. why not put all that effort in refuting an argument 😕

on the topic of avoiding debate...you have certainly ignored my question.

Originally posted by Alliance
on the topic of avoiding debate...you have certainly ignored my question.

Ignore you! How is that possible? 🙄 😆

Just simply not answering.

Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
why not put all that effort in refuting an argument 😕

Since it has been explained to you that the combination of "Complex Specified Information" and "Irreducible Complexity" do not qualify as a legitimate basis upon which to build a valid scientific theory, perhaps you should put more effort into explaining how Intelligent Design qualifies as a valid scientific theory.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Since it has been explained to you that the combination of "Complex Specified Information" and "Irreducible Complexity" do not qualify as a legitimate basis upon which to build a valid scientific theory, perhaps you should put more effort into explaining how Intelligent Design qualifies as a valid scientific theory.

Forget it, waste of my time.

that feeling crops up often in this thread.

Seeeeeeeeeee, the thing is...

ID isn't a valid scientific theory because it caaaaaaan't be tesssssted the way a scientific theory is supposed to. It doesnnnnn't mean that it's not corrrrrrrrrrrrrrrect, but it's not a sssssssssssssssssssscientific theory.

I thiiiiink.

I think your keyboard is sticking a bit.

ID is not a scientific theory. It was not a hypothesis that was continuously proved correct. There is no evidence suppoerting it. Its simply an idea...that really has no basis whatsoever.

It was simply made up because people feel that "evolution" (they keep saying that Darwin inveted evolution...why?..oh thats right, they no nothing about the Theory of Natural Selection) which is proven scientific fact, offends their Biblical beliefs. They dont care what fact is, as long as they live happily ever after in their delusional world. Thats fine, but then they try to force this mass-delusion on others...which makes people angry.

Originally posted by Alliance
I think your keyboard is sticking a bit.

ID is not a scientific theory. It was not a hypothesis that was continuously proved correct. There is no evidence suppoerting it. Its simply an idea...that really has no basis whatsoever.

It was simply made up because people feel that "evolution" (they keep saying that Darwin inveted evolution...why?..oh thats right, they no nothing about the Theory of Natural Selection) which is proven scientific fact, offends their Biblical beliefs. They dont care what fact is, as long as they live happily ever after in their delusional world. Thats fine, but then they try to force this mass-delusion on others...which makes people angry.

Whatever you say 😆

You seem to have a ptoblem with this philosophy...you just believe whatever you're told.

Originally posted by Alliance
You seem to have a ptoblem with this philosophy...you just believe whatever you're told.

😆 I could say the exact samething with you. human evolved from apes 😆

you would laugh if i said I could make a ship sail by lighing a bonfire under her deck.

Originally posted by Alliance
you would laugh if i said I could make a ship sail by lighing a bonfire under her deck.

No, as long as you have evidence or at least something reasonable than I would give you the benfit of the doubt.