God created Morality

"Industrial Plants work through mechanical processes and have almost no negative feedback loops. They are completely different."

We have a couple million cells in our body. how many of your do not work.

I got a red cup to go with a red plate.

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

There completely different but both use the same logic

Firstly i am loosing because i can not get people to understand what i am trying to say and liberals are blind

Secondly like i said before. the cell function and acts like a factory. Secondly many parts in it act in a production line

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

Cells work through chemical processes and controlled via negative feedback loops. Industrial Plants work through mechanical processes and have almost no negative feedback loops. They are completely different.

Wow.
You do know it is possible to be correct but not have a convincing argument? You seem to think that the only reason you are losing is because you are arguing for god, and completely dismissing the possibility that your argument is no good.

I believe in evolution, but ive seen people trying to defend evolution in completely incorrect ways. Their conclusion is good, but their arguments sucked. Your arguments are not very convincing regardless whether you are right or wrong. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can work to improve your arguments.

Believing that everyone simply doesnt like your conclusion is a sure way to never improve.

THe functionality of cell parts works exactly the same as parts in a factory. They may be different object's but there functionality is the same.

I got my dog a blue collar to go with the blue doghouse

I got a red plate to go with a red cup

There biologically different but the logic is the same

Again trust me you would not be arguing with me if you understood.

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

i don't understand your logic. So we can not use analogy's Except when something is exactly the same.Both the cell and a factory work in a production line.You seem to be saying this is wrong because both have some differences

I completely understand what you’re saying, it’s just incorrect for the reasons I keep explaining and you keep ignoring.

Fire - and any chemical reaction - follows the same “process”. Flood deposition and erosion follows the same “process”

The “process” of a production line is simply just set of successive steps that change a set up of input materials into a given output.

When you make fatuous comparisons, you bring in and imply properties and attributes that we know where designed - but aren’t shared. When you strip away all the differences and actually list what’s really common between a production line and a cell - you’re left with something so superficial it’s clearly not indicative of intelligence.

You would not be arguing with me if you understood what i have been trying to say.
I guess i just have dump some holy water on my computer and pray

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

A production line is not an physical object but a process.The cell use's this process.A factory uses this proccess

I completely understand what you’re saying.

Unfortunately, your problem is that you are under the false impression that the tenuous and superficial similarities of two things highlighted by analogies used to paraphrase what happens - is equal to deep and low level identity between two things.

It seems you continue to flat out ignore this critical and fundamental issue with your argument.

No amount of trivial and superficial similarity between a production line and cell chemistry will change that a cell is completely and fundamentally different at every level from a production line.

The fatuous equivalence is the problem you have.

The reason why i keep loosing debate's is because i am saying god exist. I could rack up a win streak easily if i said believe in Jesus is like believe in Santa And ascribed myself to liberal doctrine.

It holds more then simalarity's a cell functions like a factory.

Is that why your not understanding this.you confuse why i use analogy;s. You misunderstand why people use analogy.i kept using this analogy because this is what i am saying god did. I did not use the analogy because it is something humans understand.But because i am saying god did the same thing as the example. Maybe you will understand this now

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

Sharing some superficial anthropomorphised similarities != materially identical.

This logic is why you keep losing debates

Again a cell is like a production line.IT is compared to it because it is very similar to how it works if not the same as a production line. my source said the ribosomes are the worker. nucleus is the chief officer

And the Endoplasmic Reticulum (ER) is the assembly line where the ribosome do there work.It act the same way as a factory line
http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/comparing-cell-factory-answer-key/

"We are built the same way a car is built.
A bunch of parts with certain function put together"

A car is made out of a couple thousand parts

A human is made out a couple million parts.

Each part has a purpose. When all parts are put together we have a car and a human

We are not built the same way a car is built. Even the idea is plainly ludicrous. We’re not even built. We grow. Nothing about a production line is the same as how organisms develop - just sweeping, broad, metaphorical interpretation.

Your confusing metaphor - with real tangible substance.

look's like you ended it. So it has ended

How long are you two going to debate this? At this point, you're just repeating the same things with minor variations and slightly different analogies.

We are built the same way a car is built.

A bunch of parts with certain function put together

both are physical machines assembly parts into a whole what is not being understood

the third column explains what the parts do

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

it is not a chemical reaction.The bones the fiber the meat the joints in my arm are not a chemical reaction. Nether are the membrane the cytoplasm or the lipids in my cells.

Once’s a physical machine assembling parts into a whole.

The other is a chemical reaction.

They are not at all the same.

The reason why they compare the two is because the parts function the same way and or very similar to a factory

The cell part's work in a production line

look at the 4th example
http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/comparing-cell-factory-answer-key/

Again - metaphor.

A cell isn’t a production line. It’s a metaphor that’s used to explain roughly how cells work in terms humans are familiar with.

It’s not an actual production line.

look at the 4th example

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

A lot of part of a production line in a human factory Work the same way or similarly of a part in a cell

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

Did you listen to anything I just said? I guess not.

A cell is not a production line, it doesn’t have the properties of a production line that we use to determine cars are created. It doesn’t have many properties of a human production at all.

But if you want to describe it in terms that are easy to understand, you can use metaphors.

Unfortunately - no number of metaphor make cells an actual production line.

"DNA/chromosome « plans: Each factory has plans that govern the production and development of their products, as well as plans that govern the day-to-day operation of the factory. DNA is analogous to such plans, providing the code not only for all cell products, but also the proteins that govern daily operations within the cell."

https://www.csun.edu/science/books/sourcebook/chapters/10-analogies/analogy-cell.html

i WiIl never understand how people do not see this as intelligent design

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

The DNA replication isn’t a production line. It’s a set of chemical reactions.

This is the entire issue with arguments from design: the thing that lets us know cars are built - is that cars are built.

You then use broad metaphors to gloss over all the ways in which the two things are different. Cells aren’t assembled by robots on production lines that we know are created, managed and manipulated by humans.

A cell doesn’t have a production line; it has a organic chemical process which you can explain in familiar human terms as a production line: but again - you ignore all the ways it isn’t a production line.

We can tell a car is designed because we know it was designed, it contains components and objects that we know humans design. It contains bolts, seams, as disparate materials that are bolted together. It contains no maintaining processes that can replicate, fix, or manage the car as a whole, rather than individual systems within it. And a thousand other things that allow us to assign a car to one of the billion things humans have created. Without those properties you cannot tell whether a car was designed or not: but if a car didn’t have those properties it would not be recognizable as a car at all.

"We can see physical production lines - built by humans that create cars."

OK so by your logic if we only able see the production line and it created car's.We would not know humans made it.because we did not physically see human make it.We see the production line in the DNA repair system. We see what are DNA produces

There is over 100 different enzymes working in a production line. Why is this not intelligent design.
https://youtu.be/sX6LncNjTFU?t=361

but 100 people in a production line in some factory is intelligent design.

The simple cell literally builds a factory on demand then despand so it won't harm anything then reexpand in a safe place

This guy explains the factory of simple cell
https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=1099
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sX6LncNjTFU

"Yes: we observe the final product is a cartoon character - and we know cartoon characters are created."

Your missing the point we do not need any knowledge on the subject.

Clearly you do not need to know anything about pikachu or Nintendo it could be just another animal in the wild for all you know. Clearly you can see the color yellow was picked intelligently.Is it not obvious.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/15aozlAhM1TqcShp2218xc7MTpiP-vCTHfU6Eu93SEo0/edit

Half of my examples i have no knowledge about.I just find random picture on the internet that show's the proof i want and show the reason why they picked the color.

"We can see physical production lines - built by humans that create cars."

This is off topic but i do not know how people not believe in god.a simple cell functions like a factory. our DNA works like a factory.It really is double standards.That the human factory are intelligent design but the one's our body does are not.
https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=1099
http://www.drpasswater.com/nutrition_library/dnarepair.html

“ Yes we know Nintendo was created by humans because duh.But we can see Nintendo created it just by observing the final product”

Yes: we observe the final product is a cartoon character - and we know cartoon characters are created.

"No one has ever looked at the colour of a Pikachu and thought: “hmmm, you know, this character must have been created because this shade of yellow is too perfect.”

I have done that.pikachu is colored yellow because lightning is yellow
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15aozlAhM1TqcShp2218xc7MTpiP-vCTHfU6Eu93SEo0/edit

Yes we know Nintendo was created by humans because duh.But we can see Nintendo created it just by observing the final product

We know Nintendo characters are created by humans - because they are computer games. Computer games that we know are created by humans.

No one has ever looked at the colour of a Pikachu and thought: “hmmm, you know, this character must have been created because this shade of yellow is too perfect.”

Now, what you’re doing is frankly grade A denial.

I said that cars have creates. We see them. We meet them.

Kinda seems like a property indicative of being created. Don’t you?

We can see physical production lines - built by humans that create cars.

Again: that seems like a dead giveaway!

We see fool marks, welding prints, etc: and aspects of manufacture. Kind of indicative of manufacture, right?

So quite frankly, I have no clue why you’re contesting that having a creator is not a good indicator of having a creator : but hey.

"The other properties I listed are the reason we conclude computer game characters are created by an intelligence, and the colors were intelligently selected. If rabbits don’t have ALL of those properties -"

those properties are not why we conclude that the game was created by an intelligent choice.We conclude that it came by an intelligent choice by observing the color and wondering if there is a reason why they colored it a certain way. We do not even need to know that the properties you listed were even a thing.

observe the color's do we even need to see them physically create the game

Nintendo created cactus thing yellow to match yellow desert level

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

God created Rabbit white to match the white snow.

The other properties I listed are the reason we conclude computer game characters are created by an intelligence, and the colours were intelligently selected. If rabbits don’t have ALL of those properties - which they don’t - that conclusions cannot cross apply: which it doesn’t. So those properties are fundamental to the question.

The other properties have zero relevance to it.unless you can give a reason why.The guy making the game is irrelevant. We could tell that they made an intelligent choice without even knowing all of that

I understand exactly what you’re saying - it’s just not logical, for the reasons I keep repeating. The same goes for the complexity of animals.

You’re trying to claim two things have the same cause because they have similar properties - but ignoring all the properties relevant to the actual cause which are different.

We know computer games and cars have creators - because they have their creators. We’ve seen them. Met them, we’ve seen car production lines. We see tool marks, they familiar human items and machinery that we have observed needing intelligent intervention. They don’t breed, they cannot be grown, they don’t have biological processes, they don’t reproduce their genetic material to the next generation. That’s how we know they have creators.

Because of those differences, it is not valid or logical to claim the cause is the same.

it does not matter if they are different properties. The logic is the same.

Do you even understand what i am trying to say.You can't win the properties in animals argument.There is so advance that it is dumb to even say anything but god created it.

Yes it completely change that the logic is the same.

When the properties of two things are completely manifestly different, you can’t just cherry pick similarities and then assert the cause is the same, with no additional logic.

Nintendo created cactus thing yellow to match yellow desert level
https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ZRNgGS0JpBElUU_5UFGFRbA3uqfwgPdghX6CfirgTQ/edit

God created Rabbit white to match the white snow.

They may be different but that does not change the logic is the same

i keep saying the same thing two.God did the same intelligent choice as Nintendo did.The properties in a living organism is proof of god not evolution.Even the simple cell is far more complex than anything humans have made.It is like a transformer in that kids movie you know how a transformer turns into a car. A cell can morph into a factory on demand.

A simple cell works like the transformers in those car robot movies
https://youtu.be/r4sP1E1Jd_Y?t=1099

Science is really good at telling us how stuff works. but not how something came to be.telling me how something works like DNA, does not disprove god.It only supports god made it because it is so Advance

As I keep saying - and you keep ignoring - it is irrelevant.

You can’t apply what happened to video games to what happens to living organisms - they are different things with different properties, and are fundamentally different in almost every way. Because they are so different you can’t say what what caused something in one caused something In the other.

It’s just ridiculously bad logic, and faulty critical thinking.

It is actually a myth that science has come anywhere close to discovering how we came to be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4sP1E1Jd_Y

It is not irrelevant. Nintendo did the same thing i am claiming god did.

The reason why Nintendo colored this creature yellow was because it was an enemy in the yellow desert level.

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

The reason why rabbits are white during the winter is because go colored them white to match the white snow.