For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
You call this a thread? It's a piece of shit!Kuznetzova wrote:Yeah. Come into a thread like this and start bible-babbling at us.
Arising_uk wrote:Only made worse by your obsession.
Quite. QFT. That's the point isn't it we share 50% of our genetic material with a tomato, which means there are things in tomatoes all organisms need, respiration, sexual differentiation, the ability to synthesise beneficial amino acids, and so on the list is endless. That other 50% though is clearly what makes us not a vegetable, well some of us anyway.thedoc wrote:Blaggard wrote: By the way this is not true that we are nearly identical with some great apes, 4%, yeah they say 99. whatever these days but they kinda revised that down recently so it might be as much as 98% and as little as 96% and that genetic difference is ferking huge, one must remember we share 50% of our genetic code with tomatoes, not one no matter how stupid would claim we were half tomato. The Devil is in the details.
It should be noted that the 98% or whatever we share with other creatures is because there are a lot of structures and functions that we share, and that small percentage accounts for all the differences between us and everything else. All mammals breath, have hair, and a lot of other common features, why shouldn't the DNA for those attributes and functions be the same?
It's hardly an obsession when my post takes square aim at the title of his thread. Unlike others, I try to stay on topic.Arising_uk wrote:Only made worse by your obsession.
bobevenson wrote: It's hardly an obsession when my post takes square aim at the title of his thread. Unlike others, I try to stay on topic.
I wasn't talking about design, I was talking about decisions, the subject of the thread.Ginkgo wrote:bobevenson wrote: It's hardly an obsession when my post takes square aim at the title of his thread. Unlike others, I try to stay on topic.
Bob, can you explain how your post(s) relate to the argument from design?
So, are we talking title or content?bobevenson wrote:I wasn't talking about design, I was talking about decisions, the subject of the thread.Ginkgo wrote:bobevenson wrote: It's hardly an obsession when my post takes square aim at the title of his thread. Unlike others, I try to stay on topic.
Bob, can you explain how your post(s) relate to the argument from design?
bobevenson wrote:Are you suggesting the title has nothing to do with the content???
I'm addressing the broader subject of decisions, the atoms, not the subatomic particles.Ginkgo wrote:bobevenson wrote:Are you suggesting the title has nothing to do with the content???
No I wasn't saying that. You said in your post that you take square aim at the title of the thread. The title of the thread addressed an argument from design. You addressed the title you address God's design.
bobevenson wrote:It's not God's decisions you should be questioning, it's our religious, cultural and social institutions you should be questioning, which prevent God's will from reaching our minds: "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." -Revelation 17:17
bobevenson wrote: I'm addressing the broader subject of decisions, the atoms, not the subatomic particles.
